Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Oct 2003

Vol. 573 No. 1

Leaders' Questions.

Everyone in the House will share the disappointment of the people of Northern Ireland and the entire island at the outcome of yesterday's events. What began as a day of huge promise ended with the process clouded in uncertainty. Elections held in the current context could have fatal consequences for the process. In the Taoiseach's absence I commended him, his colleagues and the British Prime Minister for their continuing efforts to resolve this complex matter. My party remains committed to assisting in every way the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that what was on offer from yesterday's measures was an act of completion as set out in the joint declaration last April? Does he consider that it amounted to a complete end to all paramilitary activity and a process to complete decommissioning?

Was the Taoiseach aware of the details of the agreement or understanding reached between David Trimble and Gerry Adams which appears to be central to the issue of an acceptable level of transparency in respect of the extent of wea pons and armoury decommissioned in this third act of decommissioning by the IRA? Was the Taoiseach aware of the detail and the level of agreement between the two people involved?

I thank Deputy Kenny for his ongoing support in this effort. I will make a more detailed statement later. What we sought yesterday was to address the complex issue, as Deputy Kenny said, of closure of the conflict based around an act of completion – the phrase we have used for the past year – and to generate confidence and hope for the future.

I would not be honest if I did not say that I am deeply disappointed that our efforts failed. We will continue in our efforts with the British Government and others to try to find a solution to the issue. It is important that we examine what was achieved because it must be maintained. We set out with certain aims and we must be careful that we build on what we have achieved and not lose it. That is my greatest concern.

No one contradicted me when I said to the parties yesterday that one issue remained to be resolved, namely, decommissioning. However, the level of understanding that had been reached before that difficulty arose should be stressed. The British Government announced the date of the election to the Northern Ireland Assembly – 26 November. Many people, North and South, felt this election should have taken place last May. It is proceeding now. We wanted to ensure it took place in a positive environment. Through intensive engagement, agreement was reached between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin that suggested the possibility of new hope and confidence for the future.

Deputy Kenny's first question was whether we believe that what we understand to be paragraph 13 was included in that. We have discussed it with both parties. In our view, together with the endorsement by the IRA which we have always said was essential, it represents an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. It also defines for the first time the goal to which we are working, namely, the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. These two points are essential.

The Deputy's second point is slightly more complicated. I was aware of the details of the different issues that arose in the conversation between David Trimble and Sinn Féin through Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and different delegations that changed on several occasions. I was aware of these discussions and what they were going to say during the day. The nuance might have changed but I was aware of the content. I also exchanged that information with other parties to whom I spoke.

My concern all along, and it was obvious to anyone observing this closely that there was a problem, was that the one person with whom we were not dealing was the IRA representative in the area of decommissioning. We had no contact with this person who was dealing with the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. While General John de Chastelain is a polite and gracious man, he is also very conscious of his independence and the legislation and regulations under which his commission is established. He deals strictly on that basis. That was the issue to which I was referring in recent days when I said there were some issues over which we have no control.

Until 2.30 p.m. yesterday, until General John de Chastelain presented his report and told us what he could or could not say – in many cases what he could not say because he had a confidentiality agreement under the regulations which he was totally within his entitlement, we did not know the outcome. Of course, if we did not know, then Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness did not know and neither did David Trimble. I always felt that was a difficulty, even though we got through on 24 October 2001 and in April 2002 on that basis. People could immediately say that more clarity and detail were required.

General John de Chastelain gave a large amount of detail. For instance, he said it included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives, explosive materiel. He said the act of decommissioning was the largest ever, significantly more than was ever seen. The weapons being put out of use were modern, useable, fully operational, in proper working condition and permanently beyond use within the terms of the decommissioning legislation. The materiel if used could cause death and destruction on a very large scale. There were different types of weaponry than on previous occasions. This was all stated by General de Chastelain but he could not say it consisted of 95 of this, 36 of that or 11 of the other and I knew that he could not say that. I always said the potential was there for somebody to say that they needed to know the exact amount. Equally I have been dealing with this for long enough to fully understand why he could not say so and I appreciate all the difficulties that causes. It might be complex but it is easy to have a one-liner – and nobody in this House has done that – such as it could have been a rusty bullet or gun. The fact is that it was not and everybody knows that.

There is the difficulty as it exists. I do not believe in recriminations that serve no purpose and will get me nowhere. I admit I was deeply frustrated last night but this is a new day and we must get on with it. We have a point to clarify but we should not ignore the fact that we made significant progress yesterday. We came down on the detail of one issue and we have to move on from there.

I accept that the Taoiseach has been through this in considerable detail over the last number of years. I think it quite extraordinary that an unknown representative of the Provisional IRA is in a position to impose a vow of silence upon two Prime Ministers—

It is the legislation.

—in respect of such a critical deal. I do not wish to say or do anything that would prevent progress being made from here on.

Before the process was announced, the Taoiseach signalled that there was one outstanding problem. In taking the risk, was the Taoiseach happy that Downing Street was aware of the implications and the extent of that problem? In his understanding of the agreement worked out between Mr. Trimble and Mr. Adams and his awareness of what both men were supposed to say, is he happy that from the Adams element of that agreement he was going to be in a position to deliver on the unknown representative of the IRA? Was the Taoiseach and his negotiating team happy that Gerry Adams, with this unknown representative, would be able to provide a sufficient level of transparency and clarity as to the extent of what was being decommissioned? Does the Taoiseach consider that if this sticking point is not resolved, holding the election in this context could have serious consequences for the entire process?

My view on the election is that it should take place anyway. All the parties want that. Our plan was to ensure the election would take place in a positive environment that would best ensure the re-establishment of the Assembly and the Executive. Anything that damages that plan is difficult and I have no doubt it would cause significant problems in the future.

The reason we were concentrating recently on Sinn Féin and the UUP was that they were the two parties which lost trust and confidence a year ago. That was why the institutions collapsed and that is where the difficulties lay. I know that is frustrating for people but we did our best to keep people informed. That is where the problem was and we had to try to solve the problem as best we could.

On the question of what Gerry Adams or anybody else knew, I think everybody knew. It was not a secret and that was my concern. The legislation and the regulations were in place and the procedure followed was the same as on the previous occasion. That was the basis for achieving decommissioning and getting arms put beyond use in a verifiable way. In reply to the Deputy's question, Downing Street was well aware of my fear because even yesterday morning I was quite reluctant to leave here because I was unable to make contact with General John de Chastelain, even to find out what was happening.

I understood it would be possible for me to talk to General de Chastelain at 6.30 p.m. on Monday but the first time I was able to make contact with him was when I walked into Hillsborough yesterday evening. That did not help but I have to try and pick it up.

Yesterday we set out to achieve an enormous amount and I think we achieved it all. The position is on the detail of what can and cannot be said. There is an obvious way of dealing with this and we will make an attempt at the obvious way but unfortunately, as Deputy Kenny will appreciate, I can talk to anybody in this process except the people who might be able to help. However, we will try and I believe Sinn Féin will attempt to help us. It is not easy for them either and I understand their difficulties.

I also understand that we must be very careful that the excellent relationship which has been built up for the first time in this process between Sinn Féin and the UUP is not damaged more than it was last night. I hope it will not be. I plead with everybody to move the process on in a positive manner.

I am sure the Taoiseach will understand if I say that most people who want to see the success of the peace process were puzzled that events into which so much planning and preparation had been invested could have such a setback because of apparent limits placed by the IRA on what General de Chastelain might say.

I know there will be an opportunity for Members to make statements in the House later in the day but I wish to follow the Taoiseach's explanation to Deputy Kenny for a moment. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said this morning that it was a problem of presentation. The Taoiseach stated he did not get an opportunity to speak to General de Chastelain until 2.30 p.m. yesterday. I presume he means that he did have an opportunity to talk to General de Chastelain at whatever length was necessary prior to the statement being made by him.

I note that the Taoiseach at his second press conference last night went out of his way to draw our attention to the fact that decommissioning is a statutory process. In other words, there are statutory provisions guiding the circumstances in which the commission may report and in what circumstances information may be disclosed, for example, in the interests of public safety or to the two Governments. It is clear that there is an imposition of confidentiality, subject to those provisions, on the commission but it would not appear that there is any such statutory imposition on the two Governments.

Will the Taoiseach address how he thinks the process can proceed from here? Is it his understanding that there is no such imposition of confidentiality on the two Governments, although I understand there may be other impositions on them as a result of discussions? Are there circumstances in which the two Governments can address this question? I raise this specifically in the context of Prime Minister Blair's comment that if Mr. Trimble and the rest of us were to know what he, the Taoiseach, the IRA and General de Chastelain know, we would all be satisfied. It is especially frustrating if that is the case – that the information in the possession of the two Governments would satisfy the people on this island, including the Unionist community. If that is the case, are there any circumstances in which the Taoiseach could envisage the two Governments moving to break the logjam?

The two Governments will have to move to break the logjam. Deputy Rabbitte's question is an important one which we spent much of yesterday discussing. The position with regard to confidentiality which, as I said, I knew about, is dealt with in the Decommissioning Act 1997 and section 13 of the supplementary regulations 2001. These provide that, "The Commission shall ensure that all information received by it in relation to making arms permanently inaccessible or unusable is kept confidential." However, the regulations also state, "The Commission may disclose information received by it where such disclosure is necessary . . . to discharge the duty of the Commission to report to the Government and the Government of the United Kingdom."

Two issues arise, namely, why does the IRA insist on confidentiality and, as Deputy Rabbitte asked, what can the Governments say? I am not in a position to answer for the IRA or the way in which it decides to conduct its business. From the discussions we had with the Independent Inter national Commission on Decommissioning, my understanding is that the IRA believes that unless it proceeds in its dealings with the commission on the basis of confidentiality, it would damage rather than enhance its prospects of putting all arms beyond use as quickly as possible. I sincerely hope it will revisit this thinking, at least in respect of yesterday's act. The Government will receive a full inventory of what the IRA has put beyond use at the end of the process. The IRA is aware of this. It is important to know that an inventory is made each time which will be held by the commission with the intention of providing it at the end of the process. It is not a case, as some cynics have said – though I hasten to add they are not in this House – of a rusty bullet and a broken gun from the First World War. I already put on the record what was said yesterday.

In answer to Deputy Rabbitte's question, the reason the Governments cannot move on is due to Mr. Trimble's second question in regard to the decommissioning process not only being more verifiable but also that it must continue. That is addressed in the second IRA statement yesterday when it said that the IRA leadership is committed to resolving this issue. It went on to state:

In line with our stated position we have authorised a representative to meet with the IICD with a view to proceeding with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity. We have also authorised a further act of putting arms beyond use. This will be verified under the agreed scheme.

It is our view – and this is the key point – that if we break the current arrangement with General John de Chastelain and if we were to give the full extent of what he told us yesterday, and he did not tell us everything, that would end that process. The second part of David Trimble's demand would bring the scheme to an end. I can understand why that is so. The IRA clearly stated what it would do and that it would be done within the verified scheme. There is an understanding between General John de Chastelain and the IRA representative as to what he can and cannot say. If that is broken by the Governments – and we did think about that yesterday – we would end that scheme. That is his judgment and I believe him to be correct on the issue. Such a course of action would solve last night's problem but it would bring that process to an end under the present arrangement, and the second question put by David Trimble was whether the process will continue.

I do not wish to say too much about the issue of presentation, as suggested by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. That is a fact but there are rules, legislation and commissions.

I was very hopeful yesterday when I heard that these arms could have caused death and destruction on a gigantic scale. However, it does not sound as exciting when expressed in the military terminology of the commission. Yesterday we heard that the decommissioning comprised light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions, including automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive material. It was also stated that the quantity of arms involved was larger than any previous decommissioning event and that the weapons were modern, usable, fully operational and in working order.

Things have moved on considerably since an occasion under a previous British Government when it was said to me that one bullet would solve the whole problem. Unfortunately it has not moved on enough for the UUP and we have to keep at it.

The Taoiseach almost seems to be saying that if General de Chastelain had issued a written statement couched in certain language it would have been adequate to meet the circumstances. Does the Taoiseach consider that there is any impediment to him calling on the IRA in the House to release the commission from the imposition of confidentiality that seems to impede further progress?

With the benefit of hindsight, does he consider it a mistake to exclude the SDLP and other parties from the equality of involvement they had heretofore? The SDLP has made no secret of its concern that it has been effectively sidelined. Its involvement dates back to the origins of this process and it could properly claim a role in the authorship of the process. It has also had the experience of failure and perhaps its involvement, together with the other excluded parties, might have headed off the impasse that the process is now in.

Last night I called on the Sinn Féin leadership to try and help us resolve these issues. I hope it can do so. While the British Prime Minister and I do not rule out the possibility of saying more about what we were told yesterday, it would be unwise to contemplate that course without giving the IICD the chance to resolve the difficulty through direct contact with the IRA. If the Governments were to act without affording the IRA and the IICD the opportunity to develop a new position, it would damage the contact between those bodies and might do irreparable damage to the process of putting arms beyond use. Yesterday morning's event was not the last.

I have not only well understood the SDLP; I have heard the same line from the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition. I continually meet the parties. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and I have met the SDLP a great deal in the current period. As always, if things had worked out last night I would have used the best language to describe the progress we had made. Much of what has been raised has been the brainchild of the SDLP and the party has contributed to the progress we have made on policing. I said that last night and the parties were aware of it. The difficulty on the issue in question is that the SDLP does not have any guns and, as such, it does not bring anything to the process of decommissioning. Thankfully, the party is not in that business, nor has it ever been. Its role does not involve it in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning although it is involved in everything else. The SDLP is involved in all other positive elements of the process, which is something we act to maintain. We did that last Saturday when almost every member of the Cabinet met the leadership of the SDLP following a meeting last Wednesday at which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met the SDLP a few days after me.

The PUP, whose members I met last week, has an involvement in the issue of arms and I have discussed that with its representatives. The remaining difficulties were not issues in respect of which the SDLP could make a contribution. Of course, the party has a contribution to make on policing and we keep the party fully briefed about every move in that regard. The SDLP has taken the lead on this issue, which is why we have taken our lead from it following the Weston Park talks of summer 2001. We continue to keep the SDLP fully involved. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that we would not be here if it were not for the SDLP's work over the last number of decades. All parties continually ask why we do not invite everybody to sit at the table at all times. I assure Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny that I pray for the day when that is possible. It is far easier to meet everybody together than to have to meet each group painstakingly for hours on end. Unfortunately, when one invites everybody, somebody walks out in the middle of proceedings, somebody starts a row about something that is not on the agenda or somebody does not turn up but instead holds a simultaneous press conference to explain that. All parties are working on the group on the bill of rights, except the UUP, which we cannot get to attend. I pray for the day when it will be a simple question of asking all groups to come to the table together.

To be fair, the SDLP has never refused.

The SDLP has been exemplary on all issues. I have no difficulty with the SDLP and I understand the frustration of its members. The Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party and, increasingly, the PUP have played constructive roles, but our problems have been continually with Sinn Féin and the UUP. We have overcome those to a great extent.

It seems odd to exclude the SDLP because it has no guns.

Deputy Rabbitte, we have gone well over time on these questions and we should be fair to Deputy Joe Higgins.

I accept that. When one is not part of the problem, one tends to be isolated.

The SDLP is part of the solution.

The SDLP represents a huge part of the solution, but not in respect of arms. The party can bring nothing to the arms issue which is a business in which it has never become involved. The party is important in every other area, but it cannot solve this one for us.

Yesterday, a leading representative of the small business community sharply highlighted the contrast between the taxation treatment of ordinary working men and women in this State and the jet-setting tax exiles who make massive profits from the resources of the Irish people before escaping with virtually no tax being imposed on them. This happens because the Taoiseach's legislation permits the fiction that they do not live here. A few months ago, the Government introduced a blunt law to allow local authorities to coerce tens of thousands of ordinary working people's households into giving up their boycott of the bin tax.

It is not a tax.

This tax is being boycotted by people who know it is the prelude to an intolerable new tier of local taxation and stealth charges. Let us scotch the rant of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the effect that 150 people support this campaign. This slur was faithfully repeated by the Tánaiste during Leaders' Questions yesterday. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is as challenged in his command of figures in this regard as he is in his command of a sound environmental policy. In the past six and a half years of Government, there has been a dismal failure in waste management policy and no significant diversion from landfill.

The Deputy is making a big contribution.

I am making a very important contribution.

The Minister of State should allow Deputy Joe Higgins to speak without interruption.

There has been a dismal failure to put in place the infrastructure to allow the huge diversion from landfill, which is entirely possible. Instead, there has been a resort to apocalyptic television advertising based on fraudulent information rather than policy. The fact is that tens of thousands of households and hundreds of thousands of working people are opposed to this tax.

I asked the Tánaiste a question yesterday, which she evaded and avoided as effectively as the millionaire tax exiles evade and avoid their social responsibilities to pay into the taxation fund.

Hear, hear.

I appeal to the Taoiseach to answer the question today. Is he the least bit uncomfortable that working men and women from Finglas and other working class Dublin communities are peremptorily thrown in prison within days of peacefully protesting against a new stealth tax imposed by his Government while in the boardrooms of the major banks, the organised theft of up to €1 billion takes place but no banker has even darkened the door of a courthouse? Does the Taoiseach see a contrast there and, if so, can he explain it? Will the Taoiseach suspend the crude policy of the non-collection of taxpayers' household bins to allow us to continue the debate on this taxation and environmental policy in a normal manner?

If extra funds are needed in the meantime, the Taoiseach can amend legislation to provide for a shakedown of, and an equitable tax contribution from, the multi-millionaire tax exiles, many of whom are frequently seen in his company at prestigious social and sporting events.

The Deputy has asked me a number of questions. The Office of Environmental Enforcement is being launched today by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It will have the power to impose fines of up to €15 million on businesses and local authorities. A very tough and consistent line is being taken against polluters in the business sector. The percentage of Dublin households which have paid or applied for a waiver is very large and includes almost everyone. The objectives of the Dublin regional waste management plan are 59% recycling, 25% thermal treatment and 16% landfill. The infrastructure of thermal treatment plants and landfill sites will be of a size appropriate to take those percentages of the waste stream to enable us to reach the recycling target. Enormous progress has been made and 225 bring centres have been established across Dublin city and county to accommodate the various recyclable materials. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is investing several million euro in the next few years to increase the number to more than 400 sites. An enormous increase will be announced before Christmas.

The Deputy is aware of my view on the law. The Judiciary is independent and must deal with contempt. If one is guilty of contempt of court procedures must be followed. No one is being jailed for protesting. People from various organisations have the democratic right to protest freely outside this House each day about the various issues of concern to them. These people are rarely troubled by the long arm of the law, let alone the Judiciary.

On the points made by Deputy Joe Higgins in regard to landfill, 86.5% of waste went into landfill in 2001 while 13.5% was recycled. In 2001 more than 100,000 tonnes of glass was landfilled. This is equivalent to 320 million bottles and jars which, if laid end to end, would stretch from New York and back 160 times.

What about what was not recycled?

Is it a threat to the swans?

This cannot continue. One must deal with disposables and other issues. Some 2.7 million tonnes of household and commercial waste was generated two years ago. This was an increase of 46% on eight years previously. The number of bring banks has increased by 337% to almost 1,500. Just 5.6% of household waste was recycled two years ago while the figure in Holland is almost 60%. We now have legislation and a plan. I respectfully ask Deputy Joe Higgins to join the race against waste campaign and try to help us to deal with the issue, whether in relation to householders, business, agriculture or the construction sector. I have no doubt that pressure from his organisation could have a huge impact on these figures in a very short time.

I would like to have a comprehensive debate with the Taoiseach on a sound environmental policy on waste management. The fact is that 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes of paper and glass went from households and commercial outlets to landfill last year, which is an incredible failure on the part of the Government. This could be diverted if the infrastructure for recycling and separation was put in place in all areas. Councils have full powers to introduce by-laws to ensure that not a single glass bottle or paper goes to landfill. The Government's policy in this regard has been a total failure and this apocalyptic advertisement is designed to cover up that fact.

Important as that is, the Taoiseach, very cleverly as usual, went after one hare that was running around this morning but forgot much faster ones. Incidentally, I would prefer to be in contempt of court than to have contempt for the rights and equitable treatment of ordinary working class people.

The central point here is the mass dichotomy in taxation treatment of working people and the privileged minority. Does the Taoiseach defend Mr. O'Brien walking away with a profit of €300 million from the resources of the Irish people, going into tax exile and refusing to pay €50 million that should be due to the social fund?

Some 18 householders from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown are in the High Court this morning on foot of injunctions. Why is such a parade of ordinary taxpayers before the courts? What does the Taoiseach say to the mass scam in the banks revealed by the Revenue Commissioners amount ing to a theft of up to €1,000 million? This could not have been organised without the knowledge of those in the boardrooms. Will a single senior boardroom member of the prestigious banks involved in this tax fraud be put into prison? Will the Taoiseach suspend this brutal policy of non-collection?

The Deputy will acknowledge that what has happened on recycling in a short period is very impressive. Treatment plants are coming on stream in the next number of years that will allow the separate collection of the combustible waste of approximately 70% of Dublin homes. We are bringing ourselves into line with what is happening successfully internationally and it behoves us all to move from where we have been in this regard. The reality in Dublin is that landfill will run out by 2007.

Deputy Joe Higgins and I have no disagreement on tax equity. There should be equity in the tax system. The low taxes this Government has introduced should be complied with fully. We have done away with many exemptions, reliefs and shelters that existed. The Revenue has been given powers in this area and it is examining the case of the individual referred to by the Deputy. The Government gave the Revenue these powers and introduced a fair tax system so that people would comply. The powers and sentences exist for the courts to deal with people who are in breach of their tax obligations. We want to have an equitable tax system where people are rewarded for generating activity, being innovative and creating employment, but they must comply fully with the tax rules. Whenever there are scams or breaches of these obligations we quickly amend the law. The Government has never been slow to do so.

Barr
Roinn