Vol. 621 No. 7
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with the family of the late Mr. Pat Finucane following the recent release of the man jailed for his killing under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20719/06]
2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the family of the late Pat Finucane; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21678/06]
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his latest contacts with the family of Pat Finucane; when he last requested a full public inquiry from the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22689/06]
4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has had recent contact with the family of murdered solicitor, Mr. Pat Finucane. [23312/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
I met the Finucane family on many occasions. Most recently, I met Geraldine Finucane and other family members during my visit to the United States in March. I had a more detailed meeting with the family on 27 February in Dublin, prior to the debate in March in this House.
I am aware that Ken Barrett, who had been jailed in 2004 for the murder of Pat Finucane, has been freed under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. This has obviously been a very difficult development but it is clearly not the end of this issue for the Finucane family, which remains focused on securing a full public inquiry. The family continues to have our full support in this. We have made it clear that we want to see adherence to the standard agreed at Weston Park and set by Judge Cory. We continue to share the concerns of the Finucane family and Judge Cory that the new Inquiries Act, under which the British Government intends to have the Finucane case investigated, will not meet these standards. We continue to raise these issues with the British Government.
The Irish Government continues to monitor developments in this matter and remains in frequent contact with the family. I have on all occasions assured the Finucane family of my support for its efforts to achieve the full truth in this case.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach about his meetings with the Finucane family, the British Government and the US authorities. The US Congress recently passed a resolution which gives additional weight to the calls for a credible independent inquiry and the rejection of the British assertion that the Inquiries Act would suffice in this regard. What support has the Taoiseach sought from the US on this matter? He stated that he met the Finucane family in March. Was the family informed about the release of Ken Barrett prior to the event?
On 24 May, The Guardian reported that the British Government planned to proceed with the inquiry in London in October. What discussions has the Taoiseach held with the British Government on that matter? Does he know whether members of the US Congress have discussed the matter with the British Government? Did he ever discuss with the British authorities the force research unit, an issue that seems to arise repeatedly in the context of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Pat Finucane? Michael Finucane, Pat Finucane’s son, is on the record as stating that the system worked exactly as intended and, in the British Government’s eyes, it worked perfectly. That is a damning indictment of the system and certainly points to the need for a credible independent inquiry. In light of the discussions the Taoiseach held with the American authorities, the British authorities and the Finucane family, can he answer any of these questions?
As I said in my reply, I meet regularly with the Finucane family, and Geraldine Finucane and other family members contact the small group of officials who work with me on Northern Ireland issues a few times each month.
We continue to show our support through a number of steps. The family is continuing its efforts here and in the UK, Europe and the United States to find the full truth in the case and to internationalise it as much as they possibly can. It is clear the Finucane family has considerable support in the United States and that the concerns of this House, which were articulated in the debate held on 8 March, are widely shared in Washington. The US House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the British Government to establish immediately a fully independent public judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane and we played our role in that. The Finucane family is pressing for a Senate resolution mirroring the recent congressional motion which was passed and has written to every Senator to lobby for support. We support the family and wish it well on that initiative. Tentative proposals have also been brought before the European Parliament in a motion. Various Irish and international groups have always taken an interest in this matter. We are briefing them and they are being briefed by the family. The campaign is ongoing. At this point we are continuing to help the family by exerting the maximum political pressure on the British Government. I have no sense that the British are willing to meet the family's needs. Until I see otherwise, I will not state that there is an indication of this happening. There is a view that, in the absence of securing agreement with the family about the inquiry, there is little point in holding an inquiry bearing in mind the expense involved. It would be a tragedy if the truth did not emerge and I have continually said that to the British Government. Therefore, I hope a way can be found to meet the family's needs. That is the agenda we have followed. At this stage it is a lobbying exercise to force them to address the issues.
Regarding Deputy Sargent's point about various reports, the Government has always been concerned by persistent reports of collusion between security forces and paramilitaries in the North. We have raised these issues with the British Government, continue to do so and will do so when the Minister for Foreign Affairs meets Secretary of State Hain on 26 June. We have raised the issues at every point and have tried to address these concerns at Weston Park by identifying the cases for investigation. This is our point and that of all those who support the Finucane family. High-profile cases were chosen and investigated by Judge Cory. We asked that they be the subject of public inquiry if necessary. In the cases of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright the inquiries are under way. In this jurisdiction Judge Smithwick is conducting the inquiry into the case Judge Cory recommended Ireland should address, the murder of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan. There is no progress on Judge Cory's recommendation of a full inquiry into the case of Pat Finucane. That failure is a matter of concern to the Government, the parties in this House and the wider community. We will continue to address these issues with the British Government.
Mr. Ken Barrett was sentenced to at least 22 years for the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane after he admitted and pleaded guilty to the murder of the Belfast solicitor who was shot dead in the presence of his family. The House accepted a motion from the Opposition that there be a full public independent judicial inquiry into the murder. The politics of Great Britain are a matter for politicians there. Does the Taoiseach believe there is anything else this House of Parliament can do? The truth in this case must come out. This man was murdered and there was collusion between the British security forces and the loyalist death squad that carried out the assassination. It is a pain to the members of the Finucane family who have battled for justice for their husband and father. I am not sure what more we can do besides voicing our opinion.
The House has taken a unified approach to this, the Taoiseach regularly meets Prime Minister Blair and the answer lies in amending the UK Inquiries Act 2005 to allow for a full public independent judicial inquiry into the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane. I expect the Taoiseach will raise the matter with Prime Minister Blair as often as necessary. Must the Irish Government embarrass the British Government into action? The truth should be fundamental to politics and I expect the Taoiseach to raise the matter in as vigorous a manner as he can on behalf of the Irish people. This may eventually yield a positive result.
Needless to say, I appreciate that support throughout. The situation is unsatisfactory. I will not put any gloss on it. We are at a stalemate on the issue. I feel bad about it for a number of reasons, mainly for the Finucane family. What I probably feel most upset about is we followed an honourable path and went into a fair process of picking a number of cases, of getting an eminent judge, and convincing everybody to follow that process, which was not easy at the time.
It took a long time to get an eminent world-known judge, and I have never heard anybody dispute the fact that Judge Cory was so. When he was on the Canadian court, he was well known internationally. He made a clear report of what the process was, not only then but a number of times since.
The British Government will not honour the agreement. It has offered a different type of inquiry. Not to put a tooth in it because I have spent so many hours talking to different people about the discussion, the reason is it will not subject the military authorities to an open forum on this. That is the issue. It is not really about anything else. That is the difficulty.
What exactly was the response of the British Prime Minister when the Taoiseach put it to him that this House had adopted a motion, as had the US House of Representatives, calling for a proper inquiry to be held into this issue of collusion? If the British insist on holding an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, which would be unacceptable, would the Taoiseach consider calling a summit specifically on this issue of collusion with the British Prime Minister to deal with it once and for all? Would he accept that perhaps that would be the only way of dealing with it at this stage?
More evidence has emerged of British agents having been involved in the Loughinisland slaughter in 1994, when the UVF killed——
We cannot depart from the questions before us.
It is a related matter. The UVF slaughtered six people in Loughinisland. It has now emerged that a British agent——
We cannot go into other matters.
——was involved in that, that the RUC destroyed the car——
The four questions refer specifically to the murder of Pat Finucane.
——the British agent provided the car for that slaughter in the first instance and this issue of collusion needs to be dealt with.
I do not have anything further to say. We have raised the issue of collusion with the British, especially in respect of a number of incidences and at every opportunity in respect of the Finucane case, of which we are speaking. We will do so again next week when the Minister for Foreign Affairs meets Peter Hain. We will use the opportunity to raise these issues again.
What did Blair say?
The point of having a separate summit does not really arise because we raise the issue at every summit.
In so far as the question of what the British Prime Minister says is concerned, the British at every level — from the Prime Minister down — have the same answer, that their Inquiries Act is adequate to deal with this situation. We do not accept that position.
I already replied on the core point in this. I do not know, and cannot tell the House, whether the British will proceed with this in the autumn. Both we and the Finucane family have told them it will not have our support. The international and national groups which support the family have made their point. It would be a costly——
The Taoiseach can tell them about our motion and that of the US House of Representatives.
As I stated in reply to Deputy Kenny, I have made them aware of all the motions. They are well aware of all the motions.
We must see if pressure will increase. Last year I got the American President to raise this issue directly with Prime Minister Blair. We must continue to press this issue but while I understand what the British are at in this case, I do not for a second accept it. I understand their tactic, which is difficult to move against, for the reason I have stated.
On the question of collusion between elements of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, does the Taoiseach know when the Nuala O'Loan report on the shooting of Raymond McCord and related matters is likely to be put in the public domain? Arising from the Taoiseach's reply about Weston Park, it was also agreed at that meeting that the Smithwick committee would begin hearings into allegations of collusion involving the Garda in the murder of two RUC men. When are those hearings likely to commence?
On the first question, the latest date is the end of the month. We have been given a few dates and they have changed, but it is still expected very shortly. I cannot be certain about that. It is long finished and it is being examined by a number of groups.
With regard to Judge Smithwick, all the preliminary work is under way on the basis of the paperwork I have seen and the questions that have arisen. I do not know when the hearings will start but the process has been under way for some time.
I refer to the report of an inquiry taking place in October. Are the British planning to proceed with some class of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act?
Michael Finucane stated clearly regarding the force research unit of the British Army that the system worked exactly as intended and, in the British Government's eyes, it worked perfectly. Does the Taoiseach's information allow him to make such a clear, black and white statement?
It does not. If it did, a public inquiry would not be needed. However, I have always felt there was collusion at a high level. I would like a public inquiry into this because of who Pat Finucane was, the work he was doing and the way he was gunned down based on whatever level of collusion. It is not a black and white situation but there was collusion in the case.
On the first issue, it has been reported that the British Government has organised a judge, an office and is ready to proceed in the autumn. I have seen nothing in the past number of months to indicate that is the case. I might have more news on that next week but I have no information now. The British Government hoped it would convince us all that its inquiry was satisfactory but it has not convinced us and organisations such as British-Irish Rights Watch of that. I do not know whether the British Government will proceed without any support and without making the necessary amendments.
5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a communication from the Standards in Public Office Commission in regard to a complaint made against the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in regard to a request he made to a civil servant to address a meeting of a political party; the action he intends to take arising from the communication received from the SIPO; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20878/06]
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received contact from the Standards in Public Office Commission in respect of a complaint made against the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21647/06]
7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the communications he has received from the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding a complaint concerning the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22690/06]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has received communications from the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding a complaint made against the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22905/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
On 19 May 2006, the chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission wrote to inform me of the decision of the commission on this matter. The commission concluded that the complaint did not warrant the commencement of an investigation under the ethics Acts. The commission, however, was of the view that it was not appropriate for an office holder to request the attendance of a civil servant at a parliamentary party meeting, even though it accepted the importance of briefings on technical issues being available to legislators who are considering complex proposals. To avoid any perception of partiality by a civil servant, the commission has recommended that in future where meetings are arranged to allow officials to give detailed technical briefings, the facility should be provided on an all-party basis. I accept the thrust of the recommendation of the standards commission and my Department is considering the most appropriate arrangement to meet its concerns.
This briefing, in which the Minister instructed a civil servant to brief the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, concerned the groceries order. Members of the parliamentary party must be confused as to how prices have risen so greatly subsequently, but that is a different issue. What action did the Taoiseach take as a result of receiving the communication from the Standards in Public Office Commission that it was inappropriate for a Minister to use a civil servant in this fashion?
Although Fianna Fáil tends to identify itself with the nation, does the Taoiseach now accept that it is wrong to use a public official as though he or she were a political servant of the Minister? Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the level of compliance on the part of his Ministers and Ministers of State in respect of the code of conduct for office holders? In particular, is he satisfied with the compliance in terms of declarations on the register of interests by Ministers and Ministers of State?
On the second issue, everyone has an obligation to fill in their forms. People are now familiar with them and are aware of their duties in this regard. In so far as they have filled in the forms, I am satisfied.
On the first question, as I said, I accept the point made by the Standards in Public Office Commission. While the commission concluded that the complaint did not warrant commencement of an investigation, it gave its view on this matter. Obviously, we will try to work out how it can be implemented. While a number of points are involved, I have brought it to the attention of the Cabinet, Ministers of State and the Government secretariat. We must try to work out what the commission's views mean in effect.
According to everyone who has examined this matter, the commission's recommendation states that a civil servant should not be engaged in such briefing to avoid showing partiality to one side rather than the other. While all Members understand this, it has ramifications, because for as long as I have been around, and indeed since the 1924 Act, officials have given briefings on technical or complex issues to Ministers, Ministers of State, or, as they were known, Parliamentary Secretaries, and backbenchers. They have rarely done so at parliamentary party meetings — parliamentary party committees are effectively the same. Officials also have provided briefings to Opposition spokespersons and to those Members of the Oireachtas who have contacted them. Hence, one instance cannot be taken in isolation.
From my experience and from that of those who have been around longer, this is a beneficial and useful way for Members of the Oireachtas to deal with technical and complex issues. Such officials may have been studying a particular issue for years and would be able to explain it.
This matter cannot be dealt with in a strict political sense, and, as Deputy Rabbitte has put it, Fianna Fáil does not try to politicise it. As the Deputy is aware, this is not the case as such briefings are to try to explain an issue. Hence, this must be examined. In the view of everyone who has read the recommendation, it means civil servants can only engage in a briefing with Members of the Oireachtas on an all-party basis. If that is the case, we must consider how that can be arranged, as well as the degree of formality which is thereby introduced into a system that has worked informally for decades. That is not a good thing and brings a level of formality where it is not necessary. It must be structured accordingly. An official attending a parliamentary party or committee meeting with a Minister, giving information by telephone or meeting a Member of the Opposition or a backbencher is exactly the same.
As always, I will accept the judgment of the Standards in Public Office Commission. However, we must engage to see how we can make such a ruling work in effect. Ultimately, we would have to amend the code of conduct for office holders. We must find a way that makes this work meaningful and helpful rather than something that works against the system. I am honoured to have served on both sides of this House and held many positions, including Government backbencher, Opposition backbencher, Minister of State, Minister and Taoiseach. To implement this as written will not be good for the Oireachtas in the future.
Has the Taoiseach sought clarification or has he communicated these views to the Standards in Public Office Commission? He seems to indicate a level of dissent from the decision it made. Does he intend to involve colleagues on this side of the House in drawing up any views that he might put to it? Surely, he is not putting on the basis of equivalence civil servants briefing Ministers or Ministers of State on technical matters or on any matter with them briefing on a politically partisan basis.
I note the Taoiseach stated civil servants brief Members on this side of the House. Speaking for myself, it does not happen very much. Some Ministers invite a spokesperson from this side of the House to be briefed on a Bill. Some Ministers do not as they are concerned about an outbreak of knowledge on this side of the House. I do not see how there can be equivalence between that and briefing a parliamentary party meeting as the civil servant in this case was instructed to do. It was an instruction to a civil servant to address a parliamentary meeting that recently lead to the resignation of an official working for a previous Minister of State. I would have thought one strong point of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, is his ability to communicate. I do not rate very highly his ability to read documents or to get into the detail, but he is good at briefing. I do not know why a civil servant would have to be sent in on a case like this.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Notwithstanding the Taoiseach's commitment to the House regarding Ministers promoting themselves under the guise of promulgating a Government policy, did I recently read about the Minister of State with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, telling parents——
It does not arise out of this question.
Does it not?
No, definitely not.
How is that? I thought it was the same issue.
The Deputy's question refers to a complaint made against the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
I am trying to understand the implications of it for our system.
The Deputy must confine himself to the questions before us.
I will. I absolutely accept that. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister of State with special responsibility for children briefed parents about the bonanza they will receive in child care?
It does not arise out of this question. The Chair has ruled on the matter.
The Taoiseach indicated he was satisfied with the compliance with the code of conduct for officeholders. Will he state, in respect of recent publicity attaching to a Minister of State in this regard, whether he has checked it and is satisfied there is no basis for the imputation therein?
I remind Members that the Standards in Public Office Commission is the statutory body to deal with any specific cases of complaints made under the ethics code.
The Taoiseach is making the statements. It is only about what he is saying and nothing more.
I am replying to a question. As I said in my reply, I accept the thrust of the recommendation of the Standards in Public Office Commission and my Department is considering the most appropriate arrangements to meet the commission's concern. The Government will make the point I have expressed to obtain clarification. If we can resolve the matter at that level, then we can do so. If obtaining clarification requires reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, we can obtain it in this way, but I hope that would be avoidable.
My point is about the merit of changing from a system that works very well at present to a more formal one that I do not believe is necessary. If the view is that it is necessary, so be it. I checked on a given week and noted that at least nine Ministers, or either backbenchers or Opposition Members, would have had a direct reference to a civil servant for bona fide reasons. These would have included obtaining clarification, understanding or a briefing from somebody dedicated to a specific area. I do not see what is wrong with this. It has gone on from time immemorial and I do not understand the reason for changing it.
The presence of a civil servant at a parliamentary party meeting would be very rare. I can understand that point but I remember many occasions on which a civil servant attended a meeting of a parliamentary party committee. There is no real difference between a parliamentary party and a parliamentary party committee. If one were to say addressing such a body should not be possible unless it is on an all-party basis, one would, by extension, have to include anyone, be he or she a backbencher, front bench spokesperson, member of the Opposition or otherwise. I am not referring to the current Opposition but talking about what has been happening here for years. I do not believe this is necessary because the current system functions very well. On many occasions while in Opposition, I was able to benefit from a civil servant giving an explanation.
Maybe the Taoiseach had closer contact with them than the rest of us.
No. People are doing it this very week. I am trying to make a point concerning the future more than the present. We should not close ourselves to systems that operate very well because somebody has a certain view. I accept the view but I would argue it. If limitations had be placed on the existing system, I would accept a provision concerning a parliamentary party. However, if later today, for totally proper reasons, Deputy Rabbitte wanted to be briefed on a Bill by a civil servant who may be the expert on the relevant legislation for the past ten or 15 years, or if he needed to obtain clarification on some point for 15 minutes on which someone may have written to him, there would be nothing wrong with his doing so. There is no sense in the idea that we should have an all-party group comprising members from my side and the other side. The idea involves a misunderstanding of how this House works.
Is the Taoiseach reading the letter correctly?
I have given the letter to all the wizards who normally read these and we will get an interpretation. I accept the view expressed because I do not want to take issue with it but I do not want to close down the right of Members of this House who are not officeholders to something that has existed since the implementation of the 1924 Act. I do not regard it as necessary to change the system. On too many occasions, our rights and involvement in processes that are very useful to us are closed down. That is unnecessary. I make that point, but if people convince me otherwise, I will amend the rules. In this case my view is that it is not a good judgment, but I will explore it further.
That has been a very interesting exchange of views. Many years ago, when the then Minister of State, John Donnellan, was here dealing with social welfare and other complex issues about assessments on farms in particular, he admitted he was unable to answer all the questions but would make the person in the Department who could answer the question available for all the parties. His point was that he would make the public servant available to anybody who wanted to ask a question. Now it could be done either by technology, the Internet or whatever.
I do not have a difficulty with that. It is fair that the information should be available to everybody but it should not be done in a collective sense if everybody does not want it. If an Opposition Front Bench spokesperson is dealing with some Act in opposition — we have all been in that position — and wants to have something clarified, there is no need for a formalised committee of the House to do that. It should be available if somebody else wants it, but the chances of someone else wanting that briefing is highly unlikely. My point is that we should not formalise matters that are not necessary.
Information from the Government has a peculiar way of coming out anyway. I notice in a range of provincial papers that particular Government Deputies appear to be very much aware of where lotto grants come from and to what they are being allocated. They appear to have that information before anybody else. I am not sure whether it is leaked from the Department or whatever.
The phones are busy.
Perhaps it is because some members of the Government feel they have acquired a station above their——
A question, please, Deputy.
——remit and l’etat c’est moi might apply. Is the Taoiseach happy that no other members of the Government are out on a limb about any of this? I know he wants to keep people in check and I am sure he reminds them on a regular basis that they should neither be exposed nor caught in a position where they abuse political responsibility and trust in terms of a Ministry or a Ministry of State. Is he happy that they all clearly understand his message?
There are guidelines, codes of conduct and the ethics Acts, and the Standards in Public Office Commission has laid down what people should do. I do all I can to bring to their attention what is contained in the Acts and guidelines and refer to it every year when they have to fill up their form. I hope people comply with that. The Cabinet secretariat brings home to people the rules and guidelines by which people should abide. A sufficient number of events have happened in recent years for people to understand that and I do my utmost to ensure that. I cannot always be sure that every facet is complete but I hope they do that and I strongly emphasise it to them. It is a separate point to the one I am arguing. On the other one, we need clarification to hold on to systems that are beneficial to us, but as far as the ethics Acts and the Standards in Public Office Commission codes of practice are concerned, I continually highlight to them that they should stay 100% within those guidelines.
The Minister, Deputy Martin, was admonished by the Standards in Public Office Commission. The Taoiseach said originally that there was nothing wrong and, likewise, in regard to the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey——
Deputy, I am going to conclude this question. If you have a brief question I will hear it but if you have not——
Given that the Taoiseach did not think there was anything wrong, has he asked for a briefing to be given in this way, which he has had to reconsider in light of the view of the Standards in Public Office Commission? Has he had to change his view of what is acceptable given the commission's view?
Several times in opposition I got briefings directly from civil servants.
Has the Taoiseach asked for this?
I asked several times, both when leading the Opposition and as Opposition spokesperson. If one was to follow this rule one could not talk to any public servant unless everybody else was there. That does not make good parliamentary sense. If the Deputy listens to the point I am making——
The commission is wrong.
I said I accept the thrust of the commission's decision, but I would debate with it how it can be implemented so as not to restrict Members' rights. I shall make that point, and if I cannot convince it of that, we will have to go ahead. It is a misunderstanding of how a system works.
Deputy Kenny's point is correct that if one gets a briefing one should accept it is available to everybody. However, it cannot be formalised in such a manner that if someone wants a briefing everybody else must be present at the same time, and that is how it is being read by everybody. We shall try to resolve that. I do not believe it will be a major issue to resolve. I accept the thrust of the recommendation. I want to see it implemented in a way that does not remove a useful facility which allows this House to work effectively.
