Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total expenditure by his Department since January 2005; the way in which this figure compares with that provided in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24241/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Records.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the expenditure to date by his Department in 2005; the way in which this compares with the Estimates for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30208/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Expenditure by my Department from January 2005 to the end of September 2005 was €19.845 million compared with a total Estimates provision for the year of €38.965 million. While fluctuations in spending occur from month to month and some expenditures do not fall due until the end of the year, I am satisfied that overall spending by my Department for 2005 will remain within the agreed Revised Estimates for the year.
The latest European Commission report and research indicates that half of the people in this country have no opinion at all on the European constitution. Given this worrying statistic and the fact that the report was concluded under the flag of the Irish Presidency of the EU, will the Taoiseach undertake any further funding initiatives to enhance public awareness of the EU constitution? Where does he feel we are in this regard? We spoke before about taking elements of the constitution, named and proposed, that are uncontroversial and can be implemented. What is the Taoiseach's analysis of the next two years as far as the document is concerned? Is it the Taoiseach's intention to keep as high a level of awareness as possible in the public mind about what is happening and where he expects the European process and project to be in two or three years' time?
Since we last discussed the issue, the Government has produced the document, which has been well received, setting out the White Paper on the constitution. I hope it is circulated widely. The Department of Foreign Affairs has made it available through all the usual channels, including schools, libraries, public buildings and various organisations. I am aware from third level colleges and other organisations that there has been a good take-up on it, which has been useful. It will be important also for the Forum on Europe, which has been organising a structured debate, not just at their own conferences but for second and third level students in the weeks ahead, which is important. A number of national organisations have prepared various documents. NALA has produced an excellent document on the European project which I saw recently. All these initiatives are to be welcomed.
Some 13 or 14 countries have ratified the constitution, while another few must do so. The situation in France or the Netherlands is unlikely to change for the next two years. I know from my European colleagues that most people believe they should continue with the constitution. While it would be possible to renegotiate it and omit parts of it, it would be very difficult. While the debate will continue for the next few years, eventually 18 or 19 countries will probably ratify it, which will put pressure on the remaining countries, including Ireland. Currently, there is no change in the French position. I note what some of the contenders for the French Presidency are beginning to say. This debate will unfold in the period ahead. The Dutch Government has said it will not return to the issue. There is no other initiative at this stage. It was agreed in June that during the Austrian Presidency next summer, the period of reflection will continue. This is happening in most countries, as is the case here. I attended a debate on the issue in the Seanad last week and the document is now available. Many of the organisations are actively organising seminars and conferences, which is good. Those of us in favour of the European project should promote that.
I, too, want to ask about the national Forum on Europe and the Estimates for the Taoiseach's Department. The Estimate for 2005 was 38% more than the 2004 figure. What were the revised figures following the Estimates in light of the failure of the European constitution to be ratified?
What progress is being made on the task force on active citizenship on the basis of an Estimate in 2005 of €500 million? On consultancy services, the Estimate was that there would be an increase of 77% over the 2004 figure. Is that what happened or was it just a case of allowing a lot of room for manoeuvre? Given that the price of petrol will continue to increase, which he may not have estimated, will the Estimate for the Taoiseach's car require to be revised upwards and will he consider running it on biofuel in the future? At least he will be guaranteed that supply.
Or Corrib gas.
That is a good idea. I will suggest it to my Accounting Officer in order to keep down the cost.
The Forum on Europe is an independent group. The Estimate is based on the forum's budget and the resources it requires. It is not prepared on the basis of what the Department believes is required. We have an input into trying to ensure it is not excessive. In recent years, we tried to make available as much resources as possible to help the forum and to allow it to extend its remits in travelling throughout the country and engaging with second and third level colleges. Their estimate is not one we try unduly to control or curb. We try to assist the forum in every way we can.
I have given the detail on consultancies recently. As I said yesterday, most of the consultancies in the Department are in the social partnership process for various reports being drawn up under Sustaining Progress and in the policy unit of the Information Society Commission.
On the task force on active citizenship, little of that money has been spent. As the task force is just getting up and running, it will be next year before it will have any real expenditure. Most of its work will be done in 2006.
On the Estimate for my car, as the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility in this regard, the Deputy should put down a question to that Minister.
I will not ask a question about consultancies while the Minister, Deputy Martin, is in the House. I will try to keep the embarrassment to a minimum.
Can I ask the Taoiseach about expenditure compared to the Estimates and the dramatic increase in the cost of the Moriarty tribunal from approximately €3.5 million to €10.5 million in 2005? Will he tell the House what proportion of——
Deputy, there are questions coming up on the Moriarty tribunal either later this morning or certainly next Tuesday. The third group of questions to the Taoiseach are on that issue.
A Cheann Chomhairle, given my new mood of compliance with every stricture you impose on me, I will not pursue the matter.
Does the Taoiseach know what has been the cost of resort to the courts by third parties? Are they included in that figure or is it just the figure for which the State is liable in terms of lawyers and other costs, or does it include the cost of people going to the High Court frequently and so on?
A number of subheads in my Department are currently showing expenditure under profile, including the tribunals. There are fluctuations in spending from month to month in this area. Under subhead K, the Moriarty tribunal, the Estimates allocation made a provision for the possible award of legal costs on completion of the work of the tribunal. That would be whatever the tribunal would deem to be a charge on the Department's subhead. We allocated a fairly large sum of money under the subhead for this year on the basis that it would be completed this year. However, as that will not be the case, the money will be returned to the Exchequer. Some €5 million has been returned already.
We are not yet aware what will be the various costs. We do not know that yet because all we have been doing for the past number of years is carrying a provision for costs. However, we do not know what that will be. I know from the Accounting Officer that the concern is whether the provision we are carrying is large enough if third party costs and so on must be paid by the State. It is a current issue, as we are examining the Estimates for 2006. It is hoped the tribunal will conclude next year and, therefore, the costs related to it will fall due. Clearly, the costs will be very large.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the Barron inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24242/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to receive a report from the Barron inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24243/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further action he proposes to take on foot of the reports of Mr. Justice Henry Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24384/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress of the commission of inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25213/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the position regarding developments following his representations to the British Government regarding further investigations of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25214/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the reason for the delay in the publication of the report of Mr. Justice Barron into the death of Mr. Seamus Ludlow; when it is expected that the report will be sent to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26561/05]
Tony Gregory
Ceist:9 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the commission of inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27899/05]
Finian McGrath
Ceist:10 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Barron inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30220/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 10, inclusive, together.
Mr. Justice Barron's first two reports were published, examined and reported on by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The first report dealt with the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974. The second report dealt with bombings in Dublin in 1972 and 1973 and events elsewhere in the country prior to 1974.
Mr. Justice Barron's third report relates specifically to the murder of Seamus Ludlow and it was presented to the Government last year. The Government wishes that the report should be published in the form it was received from Mr. Justice Barron. In that context, certain aspects of the report have required careful consideration and were the subject of lengthy legal advice, including on the protection of the rights of persons named in the report. The Government has concluded its consideration of this matter. Officials from my Department and the Office of the Attorney General are preparing the report for presentation to the House. A motion to refer the report to the joint committee will be put to the House next week at the latest.
Mr. Justice Barron is finalising his fourth and final report. This report will deal with the Dundalk bombings of 1975 and certain other events elsewhere in the country around the same time. We can expect to receive this report in the coming weeks. It will then follow the same course as the other reports, namely consideration by the Government and by the joint committee. As of the end of September 2005, the total cost of the Barron inquiry was €2.29 million. This does not include grants paid directly to Justice for the Forgotten.
With regard to actions taken on foot of Mr. Justice Barron's report into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the Government has closely followed the approach recommended by the joint committee. It was recommended that a judge should be appointed in the first instance to conduct an investigation along Weston Park lines. We have been pressing the British Government consistently for action on this point. I indicated to Prime Minister Blair at the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 27 June that, in the absence of progress, I would seek preliminary legal advice on the possibility of taking a case in the European Court of Human Rights. I have written to the Attorney General seeking preliminary advice on the matter and there have been a number of contacts between my Department and the Attorney General's office since then. Expert legal opinion has been provided and is currently under consideration by the Attorney General's office. I therefore expect to receive his preliminary legal advice shortly. Contacts with the British Government aimed at securing further co-operation are also ongoing. I raised this issue with Prime Minster Blair again when I met with him on 11 October. Our actions in this regard will of course be informed by the legal advice we receive.
The other main action taken on foot of Mr. Justice Barron's work has been the establishment of the commission of investigation. The commission is examining certain aspects of the investigation in this jurisdiction of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974, arising from findings made by Mr. Justice Barron. When the commission was established, with Mr. Patrick MacEntee SC as its sole member, it was asked to complete its work within six months, which would be mid-November. However, the work of the commission is dependent on co-operation from other people.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Does the Taoiseach expect the MacEntee report to be finished by mid-November, given that it is dependent on other people? Does he expect it to be published? I am glad the Ludlow report is being prepared for publication and that the Taoiseach expects the report on the Dundalk bombing will also find its way into the system.
The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights recommended last March that the British Government should set up a Weston Park style inquiry into these matters. The Taoiseach raised this with Prime Minister Blair in October 2004 and June 2005. Has the British Government given a positive response to his query in this regard?
I do not have an update on the work of the commission of investigation. I have heard nothing to indicate it will not be finished and I hope it will come in around this period of time. I have not heard of a problem with people assisting the commission but I do not have an update on its work. The Ludlow report will be published shortly and, hopefully, the Dundalk report and other related reports will be published before the end of the year.
The British authorities at all levels are very clear not only of my view and that of the Government, but also of the Opposition's views because this has been raised with them at several fora. They are well aware of the sense of the House and the country on this issue. They have not been enthusiastic by any means, to put it at its mildest, in moving to a Weston Park style tribunal. However, having sensed the view here of late, they have tried to pin down what precise information they might have that might assist us and we have engaged actively in this regard. I do not know whether anything will come of that but they have indicated they will try to deal with the information. We have been going through this process for a long time but they asked for the specific and detailed areas about which we wanted information. Prime Minister Blair reiterated that to me himself and said he would then raise it with MI5 and MI6 directly to try to get this information. That is encouraging but we have to wait to see whether he gets an encouraging response. The operation of their system is strange, although I have become quite expert on its operation. I will take the Prime Minister at his word anyway and we will try to see what we can do.
On the last occasion the Taoiseach answered questions on the Barron report, he indicated he would consult the Attorney General regarding whether a case could be brought and sustained at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Do I understand from his reply that he has not received that advice, though he believes the Attorney General has concluded his assessment, or is he aware of his outlook? If so, will a case be taken? On the downside, if a case is not taken, is the Taoiseach examining other international remedies whereby the Dublin-Monaghan bombings issue and the failures of the British Government can be addressed?
Does the Taoiseach recall that when the British Prime Minister rejected his call and that of the joint committee for a public inquiry, Mr. Blair said he had seen no evidence to support the charge of British collusion in the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974? Does he also recall that Prime Minister Blair said the material assessed by the Barron investigation was insufficient to indicate if senior members of the British forces were involved in the preparation or the execution of those horrific attacks in May 1974? Did the Taoiseach address Mr. Blair on those points when he last met him? Did the Taoiseach forcefully impress on him that Mr. Justice Barron found that the farm of RUC reservist, James Mitchell, played a significant part in the planning; that RUC and UDR members were involved in the preparations; that the British forces had good intelligence from the start on who was responsible; and that the chief suspects were closely linked to British intelligence and the RUC special branch? Mr. Justice Barron made significant findings and these are among the points he made.
Did the Taoiseach point out to Mr. Blair his hypocrisy in saying Mr. Justice Barron had an insufficient basis on which to make his judgments while, at the same time, he and his government steadfastly refused to fully co-operate with Mr. Justice Barron in making access open to him to all material held on file in the North of Ireland or Britain relevant to these events?
In fairness to other Deputies offering, the Deputy has spoken for five minutes and I am not sure there is a question in the Deputy's contribution or if this is a statement.
I am concluding. Several questions are raised.
I appreciate that but other Deputies are capable of asking questions.
I am glad the Ceann Comhairle has distinguished that fact.
There have been less erudite Second Stage speeches.
What was Mr. Blair's response? Does the Taoiseach agree it is long past time a British government was held internationally accountable for its actions in 1974?
The Deputy has given us an account of the report and his questions can be answered in the affirmative. The Government set up the Barron inquiry to get to the facts and ensure they were presented. The British Government is well aware of the contents of the two reports to date and will be aware of the contents of other reports.
On the second point, the best way is to try to get full co-operation from the British side. We have worked with Mr. Justice Barron and have received co-operation in many areas. In other areas we have not and the view of everyone concerned, including the Oireachtas committee and the Government, is to try to get the British Government to indicate willingness to deal with the issues without judicial involvement or legal proceedings.
I have answered Deputy Kenny's question on what happened in that regard. I am pessimistic because one follows the process without receiving the information for which one hoped. We are endeavouring to narrow it down and Mr. Blair has stated he will proceed with regard to MI5 and MI6. Let us see what happens.
While waiting for that I have asked for legal advice on the possibility of pursuing a case in the European Court of Justice. As stated in my reply, the Attorney General has also received advice on this issue. We are aware the European Court of Human Rights has rejected two complaints made by Justice for the Forgotten. A similar outcome has occurred in many other cases in other jurisdictions on the grounds of the length of time between events and proceedings.
I have not seen the Attorney General's advice yet but over the summer much work was done on constructing a case, the appropriate grounds on which to take a case, who would be joined in proceedings and issues of time. The Attorney General is to present a report on this. I would prefer if we received the data and would like to state that I am optimistic about that but I am not. We must keep trying and Mr. Blair has stated he will try again, which I accept. In the meantime we will try to formulate our case rather than wait.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked if there is anywhere else to go. I do not think there is, the European Court of Justice is the only place where we can construct a case at this stage.
The Taoiseach mentioned that he met with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Tony Blair, on 11 October. Is the Taoiseach any closer to deciding if he will continue to hope Mr. Blair has a change of heart? Has the Taoiseach taken any further advice from the Attorney General on pursuing the matter through legal action against the British Government? The Taoiseach received the Ludlow report on 29 October. When will it be published? I understand the Barron report on the Dundalk bombings in 1975 was to be completed last Friday.
The Taoiseach referred to "third parties", a term that has caused considerable hurt to relations of the victims. In many cases they have been called victims in the past. The Taoiseach mentioned that funds available for legal representation do not include third party costs. Can the Taoiseach clarify what he meant by this? The families of people killed in the bombing are victims because they are the ones without a mother, father or relation and must live accordingly. Can the Taoiseach redefine third party and use the term more carefully?
I repeat what I said already. The Attorney General was asked to commence preliminary advice and I will receive this in November. I have already mentioned the issues he will examine to see if we can construct a case. At the same time we seek to pursue a closer focus on information needed. In fairness, there was an argument about that because we sought a broad spread and this would have required considerable resources. We are narrowing down the information requested and will see if we receive a better response but I am sceptical.
Is the Deputy referring to costs of the MacEntee commission of investigation?
Yes.
I will have to check that for the Deputy. My officials had outlined the matter to Justice for the Forgotten and other groups representing relatives. I cannot recall what arrangements were made but I can check this and send the Deputy a letter. An agreement was worked out at the time.
Does the Taoiseach wish to make a statement on the case of Seamus Ludlow, a case I have raised on several occasions? As long ago as 8 March, and possibly before, the Taoiseach stated he was examining the report and that it would be published within a few weeks. There must have been reasons this was not done and I do not know how much the Taoiseach can reveal. It is an important matter, given the disclosures at the inquest.
There has been a long delay and a long legal wrangle. Two issues are responsible for the delay. Initially the report named individuals but left it to the Government to decide if names should be made public. These people were never arrested or charged. I felt uncomfortable publishing names as dissidents or others may take action against these people and we would have no defence against that. A long legal wrangle developed which is now resolved. The report will deal with it.
There was a difference of opinion between gardaí on what happened and how matters were handled. Two senior gardaí, neither of whom was a commissioner at the time, took differing points of view. People went back and forth to Mr. Justice Barron to given their perspective but he must decide how to call this in the end. This went on for some time and I am not sure how it is called in the report. Two people had an entirely different view of the circumstances. In the normal course of events they were shown the section of the report that was relevant to them. Both gentlemen are elderly at this stage but one of them was not well and I understand it took some months before he responded. They were the two issues. In one I was not directly involved but I was involved in the second one. There is a difference between hearsay about the names of individuals that may have been involved and putting them into an official report that would be laid before the Oireachtas.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is unacceptable for a state like Britain not to fully co-operate with the Barron inquiry? Is he aware that the victims and families feel let down by that lack of co-operation? On the issue of the Taoiseach seeking legal advice to bring a case in respect of this matter, does he agree it is a sad day for international law when this State must get legal advice from the Attorney General to pressurise another government to co-operate in the inquiry into the atrocity that was the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
We have spent a number of years doing our utmost, and Mr. Justice Barron has done a good job, to get as far as we can in the circumstances. It was hugely upsetting for the victims, the families and extended families that an examination or investigation was never carried out. It is welcome that is now in place and I know they are satisfied with it. What we can get the British to do and how we can bring the inquiry forward from here, continues to require careful consideration and I have already outlined what I will do on that. We should pursue the various issues, including the Commission of Investigation headed by Mr. MacEntee, SC, our seeking further information from the British and examining the European Court of Human Rights aspect. We may not get to the entire truth about all these events but far more information and data has been uncovered now than in the period of 30 years. That may not satisfy everybody but at least we have an extensive report on it. The British may not agree with all of Mr. Justice Barron's report but at least it is a full report with conclusions on the information he was able to get from all the files he has received over the past few years.
Will the Taoiseach agree that since he set the ball rolling in 1998 and appointed the then Tánaiste, former Deputy John Wilson, to look into the matter followed by Mr. Justice Hamilton and then Mr. Justice Barron, the real problem is that almost a decade will have passed and we are still far from finality on this matter? None of the survivors, the bereaved or members of Justice for the Forgotten are getting any younger and there is a palpable sense that we are moving very slowly on this matter. The one area in which progress has been made is the Commission of Investigation under Mr. Patrick MacEntee SC, which I am delighted is coming to finality because that is the only investigation we have established under this commission. We look forward to that report being published. It is a year since the Taoiseach got the Seamus Ludlow report, which we were informed on a number of occasions would be published shortly. It appears the difficulties the Taoiseach outlined to Deputy Rabbitte could be dealt with in the short term as easily as in the long term in respect of names that might have to be crossed out and the degree of editing that would have to be done because that took place in the previous reports also. The key problem we face now——
The Deputy must conclude.
Will the Taoiseach agree that since there has been no co-operation from the British Government to date on documentation coming before the Barron inquiry and on his request for the full implementation of the sub-committee's findings, namely, that the British Government would set up a Weston Park type investigation which may lead to a full inquiry in Northern Ireland——
We are running out of time, Deputy. You have asked a number of questions.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House the work he has done over the summer, which he promised to do when we last spoke on this issue, and will he make available the legal advice when he gets it from the Attorney General next month?
At the end of June we asked the Attorney General to prepare his preliminary advice. He has also got advice on this because it is international law concerning the European Court of Justice, on how we can put together a case, who will join the proceedings, the limits and risks involved. That work has been done and we are due to get that report. We do not make available the Attorney General's advice in cases like that and we will not in this case either.
I have outlined the position on the Seamus Ludlow report. The report was received in October 2004 and circulated to the relevant sections for their views at that stage. They were received back at Christmas. Meetings with officials took place in spring and it was decided that security advice was required, which was received in early summer. That security and legal advice was reviewed during the summer and a final proposed approach was drafted for consideration by the relevant Ministers. I outlined to Deputy Rabbitte the main issues in that regard. The report has been completed and is prepared for presentation.
On the MacEntee report, it is hoped that is coming to a conclusion, although I do not have a final date. I should say the work on the Buchanan and Breen report is ongoing also. That inquiry is being chaired by Judge Peter Smithwick. We have gone back to the British, as I outlined earlier, on certain aspects. I do not know whether we will get anything on that but we have gone ahead on our European case. We will see what can happen on that but we are very near the end of our workload on this in so far as we can go. Mr. Justice Barron's work will be completed by the end of the year. I am not certain about Mr. MacEntee's report. The Cory report is under way. It appears to me the British Government does not want to go into a Weston Park type tribunal. If we cannot get the information from them we have to consider an alternative route. That would bring the work to finality in terms of how far we can go.