Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the special EU summit on Georgia held on 1 September 2008. [30105/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
European Council Meetings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent special European Council summit to discuss the situation in Georgia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32693/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in and the outcome of the special European Council meeting on Georgia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43738/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I attended the extraordinary European Council in Brussels on 1 September 2008 which was convened to discuss the crisis in Georgia. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin. The European Council strongly condemned the Russian Federation's unilateral decision to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and reiterated its support for Georgian territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The European Council also welcomed the six-point agreement achieved on 12 August 2008, on the basis of the European Union's mediation efforts, that led to a ceasefire, improved delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims and a substantial withdrawal of Russian military forces. It indicated that the EU would be willing to contribute to an international monitoring force as outlined in the six-point plan. This was confirmed in the agreement reached on 8 September between Presidents Sarkozy and Medvedev, which also called for talks on the situation to commence on 15 October. The EU has fulfilled its commitment under that agreement to have a monitoring force on the ground in Georgia by 1 October and I am pleased that Ireland has been able to provide four personnel to assist that effort.
The talks inaugurated in Geneva on 15 October 2008 under the joint auspices of the EU special representative for the crisis in Georgia, Mr. Pierre Morel, and the OSCE and UN are a welcome development. These talks are aimed at achieving a peaceful and sustainable resolution to the conflict. Sessions were held on 18 and 19 November and on 17 and 18 December 2008, which achieved some progress on issues related to security and the humanitarian situation of those affected by the conflict. A fourth session is scheduled to take place on 17 and 18 February next.
An international donors' conference took place on 22 October 2008 in Brussels which brought together 71 countries and delegations. The conference was opened by Commissioner Ferrero Waldner and the president of the World Bank, Mr. Satso, in the presence of the Prime Minister of Georgia, the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, the Czech Foreign Minister, Mr. Schwarzenberg, and the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso. The total amount pledged at the conference was €3.6 billion. I am pleased that Ireland was able to pledge €2 million in development assistance for Georgia from 2008 to 2010.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, visited Georgia from 19 to 21 November 2008 to assess the situation on the ground. He had meetings with the Georgian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and also met with the Irish monitoring team of the EU monitoring mission.
It is a measure of how out of date our procedures are that this question, which was tabled in early September, has only now come around for reply. When one considers that it concerns an issue that was then a crisis, the conflict between Russia and Georgia, one sees that it is necessary to do something about how these questions are selected for reply.
The EU responded quickly and effectively to the Georgian crisis. Much of the credit for that must go to President Sarkozy who responded very quickly. Can the Taoiseach tell us why the European Union was not able to respond as quickly or as effectively to the crisis in Gaza? When Russia engaged with Georgia, the Union was able to act quickly, deal with the situation and get a result. Israel launched an assault and invaded Gaza and the European Union seemed absolutely powerless to do anything about it. A total of 1,300 people are dead and there is major destruction in the area. Is there any way to explain why there was effective action in Georgia and no action worth talking about in Gaza?
I agree with Deputy Gilmore about the timing and tabling of questions. It is open to Members to withdraw questions when such time has passed that they are no longer urgent. It would help us get through questions more quickly if they were topical and contemporaneous.
I will see what I can do for the Taoiseach.
The House could sit more often.
Any change in that area would be more than welcome.
In response to the Deputy's supplementary question, one of the benefits of the Lisbon treaty is the proposal for a more permanent representation at the highest levels of the Union for a longer time. The Union very quickly had people from countries which have influence in that region in situ. These include the French President’s initiative with President Mubarak. Several Prime Ministers, including Ms Merkel, Gordon Brown and the Italian Prime Minister, were in attendance at the announcement of the ceasefire arrangements, which indicated that there was significant European interaction with the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Israelis and others to bring the situation, which has had tragic consequences, quickly to a halt. This highlights the benefit of a more consistent approach. A permanent president of the European Council, for which the Lisbon treaty provides, would give us the coherence and continuity that we expect, and which is needed, when life and limb are at risk and the EU’s influence can be of great benefit.
I agree with the Taoiseach regarding the need for continuity in the EU response to issues like this. When a crisis happens, the level of action taken depends on the status or authority of the head of government of the member state holding the EU Presidency. How does the Taoiseach now see relations between the EU and Russia, following the crisis in Georgia? I refer in particular to the recent difficulties that have arisen with the supply of gas to countries outside of Russia.
The most recent difficulties point to the importance of the EU-Russia relationship in strategic terms. The dependence on gas from that part of the world is quite significant in the context of the EU's energy needs in the coming decades. Any bilateral problems which arise — in this case, between Russia and Ukraine — have had consequences for the supply to others, including new members of the EU and countries in the Balkans.
President Barroso made the point in the European Parliament that the contracts of those other third countries who are not involved in the dispute need to be respected in all circumstances. The relationship between Russia and the EU is not helped by incidents where the heating needs of millions of people were put at risk for weeks due to a bilateral problem between Ukraine and Russia. The President of the Commission was very clear that the legal obligations to EU countries should be respected and that their contractual arrangements with Russia need to be upheld, regardless of the supply issues that arise between Russia and Ukraine.
The Taoiseach might be surprised to hear that I agree with him. He responded to Deputy Gilmore on how we in this House should be in a position to have far more effective structures. We could start by having longer periods of Dáil sittings. If the Government Whip brings forward proposals to change the way we do business in the House, he will find support from members of the Opposition.
The Taoiseach made the point that the Lisbon treaty was a conduit for Europe having a single voice in international affairs. During the French Presidency of the EU, President Sarkozy brought this to a new level. In the context of having a single voice, has the Government decided to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty? Was that discussed at the summit in the context of strengthening Europe? Has the Taoiseach been in touch with the Government of the Czech Republic about the declarations being drafted?
After the Georgia fracas, the EU suspended talks with Russia on a long-term partnership agreement. This was to be reviewed by the Commission on 10 November and I understand the European Foreign Ministers began discussions again on 2 December. Does the Taoiseach's report include a briefing from the European Commission on relations between the EU and Russia? Can he give the House an update on those relations following the resumption of talks on 10 November and 2 December last?
No, I do not have that detail. This question relates to the specific meeting that was held on the Georgia question. As I said in my initial reply, a series of meetings was arranged, arising from that initiative, to ascertain whether this matter can be resolved peaceably. The EU envoy, Mr. Morel, represents the Union's interests in those continuing discussions. The Deputy also raised the possibility of holding a further referendum. He is aware that everything depends on the concerns of the Irish people on taxation, defence and ethical and social issues, including workers' rights, being addressed to our satisfaction as our partners have promised. The question of revisiting the ratification process remains firmly in our own hands. I have consistently said that no decision has been taken yet. We have committed ourselves to seek to ratify the treaty before the end of the term of the current Commission if we are satisfied when the detailed follow-up work has been completed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity to meet the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic at yesterday's meeting. He discussed the logistics of what we are engaged in with them. We are working on detailed texts that have to be submitted to the legal services section of the European Commission. If the Commission is satisfied with them, the matter will be taken up with the Czech Presidency at that stage.
I thank the Taoiseach for that reply. Following the generosity he showed in the last conversation we had about this matter, can I express the hope that he will keep the leaders and relevant spokespersons of the various Opposition parties fully briefed on these matters? As he is aware, Fine Gael strongly supports the Lisbon treaty, the endorsement of which is absolutely necessary if the European Union is to be strengthened. The concerns of the Irish people should be the subject of the strongest possible protections. I hope the Government will keep Opposition Members fully informed.
All economic analyses reckon that Russia's massive reserves of oil and gas will help it to move into the top ten over the next 15 years. Its difficulty with Ukraine is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of many western European countries. I was present at a meeting in Brussels at which the President of Ukraine mentioned that Ukraine wants to join the EU at some point. It certainly wants to do business with Europe. If some unforeseen circumstance were to lead to gas supplies from Russia being cut off and energy security becoming even more critical — God forbid — what level of strategic reserves would this country be able to call on? What would our position be if such a possibility came to pass? Does the Taoiseach propose to engage in discussions with his European counterparts to move this agenda forward quickly? It is intended that the Lisbon treaty will guarantee energy security for all EU member states, which is something we would strongly support. The evidence in this country makes that absolutely critical. It should be a priority of the Government.
The scope of this question has moved from Abkhazia and South Ossetia to west Mayo, in the Deputy's constituency. The recent decreases in the price of oil and other major commodities are causing serious budgetary problems for the Russian Federation, which is a major supplier of such commodities to many parts of the world. The Deputy's supplementary question relates to this country's strategic reserves. If he wants an accurate response, he should table a detailed question to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I assure him that the Government's continued commitment to the development of an interconnector, as part of a wider North-South and east-west energy region, is an important aspect of its energy policy. In addition, the increased reliance on renewable energy sources — with a target of 40% of the island's energy supply coming from renewables by 2020 — will offer a major strategic advantage in terms of security of supply for the future. The ability to bring gas onto our own shore, in the Deputy's constituency, will also be of great benefit, and we hope that can happen as quickly as possible.
I agree with the Taoiseach that several of the points made have moved away from the central focus of the three questions tabled. That is a mistake. I hope the Taoiseach will be in a position to advise us of the continuing efforts being made by Ireland, the European Union and other influences to address the ongoing strained relationship between Georgia and Russia. The fact that this issue is not featuring prominently in our print media and broadcast reportage does not mean the problem is done and dusted. Far from it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the potential for further renewed tension and even conflict between Georgia and Russia is very real and that the situation is far from resolved? Does he agree that much of the backdrop to this strained relationship is the relationship now enjoyed by Georgia as an ally of the United States and the direct participation of significant numbers of Georgian troops in the US war in Iraq? Does the Taoiseach further agree that there is understandable concern in Russia at the intent of Georgia to secure membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, and that Russia, as a major nuclear power, has real and understandable concerns at the advent of another nuclear power on its borders?
Will the Taoiseach outline whether these matters, including the role of NATO and its proposed expansion, were addressed in the course of the EU summit on Georgia? What position, if any, has the Government taken in urging an ongoing address of the situation there, recognising that it is through negotiation that a peaceful resolution may be secured, which is far preferable to the emergence of conflict once again, which I all too sadly add is as predictable as it was inevitable as it presented during 2007? Rather than relaxing, we should be doing more to guarantee there is peaceful coexistence between these two neighbouring nations.
One of the fundamental tenets of compliance with international law is respect for the territorial integrity of every country. Regardless of the view taken by the Russian Federation or anybody else of the application for NATO membership by Georgia, it does not entitle any country to invade that territory. By the same token, the decision by the Georgian President to send Georgian troops into Abkhazia and South Ossetia at a time when there was a difficulty in terms of the autonomy being sought by those two regions for their own purposes, enabled the situation to develop where the Russian Federation responded in the way it did.
However, ultimately, the basic principle must be respect for the territorial integrity of every country. The tactical mistakes or errors that were made, which brought about the situation with which we now have to contend, does not take away from that fact. From the European Union's point of view, it is that perspective that will inform, in the main, the policy position the Union will take on this matter.
With the conflict having taken place, the need for people to withdraw, abide by the six point plan and to find some sort of a political perspective in which this issue might be resolved for the future was the right approach. Taking a proactive diplomatic effort to arrange for a ceasefire was also a positive role the Union played. However, I do not believe that the background to all of this, the policies being pursued by one country vis-à-vis another, or the other country’s view of those policies entitle any country, however powerful or big, to take it upon itself to intervene in a way that compromises the territorial integrity of the country concerned.
We are in agreement on that, historically and contemporarily. However, that does not take away from the fact that far from the situation being resolved, the potential very much exists once again for an emergence of a re-inflamed situation between Georgia and Russia. The major contributory factor, I believe, may well prove to be NATO's intentions of expansion further east.
The new relationship between Georgia and the United States demonstrates clear intent on the part of its current political leadership. It has indicated its interest and willingness to become a part of the NATO alliance. That aspect, which is like the elephant in the room in regard to this equation, is a backdrop to the relationship between these two countries, which we cannot ignore. It does not excuse any unilateral action on the part of the Russian Federation, nor does it excuse any of the actions it has demonstrated during the course of the past year. Given the importance of addressing the situation there in order to put in place a more permanent and preferably a permanent resolution of the difficulties between these two states, I ask that this matter not be ignored. Will the Taoiseach indicate if it has been addressed? Will he indicate if he proposes to address it within the context of further EU engagement on this matter?
The EU is trying to facilitate talks between the parties concerned to see if this matter can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction peaceably and in line with international norms. The only point I would make to the Deputy is that a country having a dim view of another country applying for membership of an international organisation, to which it does not or has no intention of subscribing, does not justify the action that was subsequently taken in terms of the territorial integrity of that country being compromised. Large countries are not entitled to determine spheres of influence around which other independent countries must behave to a certain norm that is suitable to the large country. It must be based on mutual respect.
Independent countries are entitled to pursue their own foreign policy objectives as they see fit once they do so peaceably and within the norms of international law. It may not help the relationship between two countries in that respect that one country is pursuing one particular security path with which the other does not agree, but it does not entitle the more powerful country to decide to interfere in the internal politics of the smaller country.
We both accept that. What I am trying to ascertain is whether the Taoiseach has addressed the fact that this matter——
No, I have not addressed it. I have many other issues to address.
Perhaps it is time the Taoiseach might do so.
I have not addressed it. If it is part of the talks that are taking place, that is fine. I am giving the Deputy my view of it and what I believe the Government's view should be, should the matter arise.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at the commemoration ceremonies to mark the tenth anniversary of the Omagh bombing. [30107/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received a request from the relatives of the Omagh bomb victims for a meeting to discuss reports that intelligence information was available to the British authorities that might have averted the bombing; his views on the request; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30953/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the event to mark the tenth anniversary of the Omagh bombing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32694/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at commemoration ceremonies to mark the tenth anniversary of the Omagh bombing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43739/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
I attended the commemoration ceremony on Friday, 15 August, held to mark the tenth anniversary of the Omagh bombing. The ceremony, organised by Omagh District Council, was a moving tribute to the victims and their families and to the emergency and medical services who assisted on that terrible day. At the new memorial garden I laid a wreath on behalf of the Government and the people of Ireland in remembrance of those whose lives were taken. Later, I had an opportunity to meet briefly with the families, and I expressed my solidarity and that of the Government with all of those affected from the town and the wider community. Both ministerial colleagues and I have received correspondence from the relatives about their concerns. However, I have not received a formal request for a further meeting.
The Government noted the contents of the "Panorama" programme and also the Prime Minister's announcement of 17 September last when he asked Peter Gibson, Intelligence Services Commissioner, to report on the matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, had also raised the allegations from the "Panorama" programme with the Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward. The Gibson review has been completed and the conclusions of the report have been published.
The Garda Síochana maintains close contact with the Police Service of Northern Ireland regarding all matters of cross-Border crime, including the investigation into the Omagh bombing. As criminal proceedings continue in this jurisdiction in connection with the bombing, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail.
There is also a civil case ongoing in Northern Ireland. That case has heard evidence in the South and has also heard evidence from the Garda.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply.
I am sure the Taoiseach will recall that in the immediate aftermath of the Omagh bombing, emergency legislation was introduced in both jurisdictions. Statements were made to the effect that no stone would be left unturned until those who had committed the atrocity were brought to justice.
The unfortunate reality is that nobody has been convicted of the bombing per se. There have been a number of suggestions about how matters might be progressed. One suggestion, made by the families of the Omagh bomb victims, is that a cross-Border inquiry might be initiated. I understand that proposal has the support of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. There has also been the suggestion by the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that a judge of international standing should be appointed to review all the available material in connection with the bombing.
Does the Taoiseach support either of those suggestions? How does he see an inquiry into the Omagh bombing being reconciled with the Eames-Bradley proposals? These are largely to the effect that no further inquiries should be undertaken in respect of the Northern Ireland atrocities.
A second issue relates to the "Panorama" programme. The Taoiseach said that the conclusions of the report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner had been published. However, as I understand it, all that was published were the summary conclusions of that report. Has the full report been made available to the Government? If not, is the Government seeking the full report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner?
With regard to the second matter, as the Deputy said, the conclusions of the Gibson report, which were published last week, do not support the allegations made in the "Panorama" programme that at the relevant time vital intercept evidence which might have prevented the bombing or help bring the perpetrators to justice was not passed sufficiently promptly to the police. That was not the finding of the Gibson report when it looked into those allegations. As the report deals with intelligence matters within the British system, it is subject to legal constraints. On that basis, I do not expect we will receive a full copy of the report.
With regard to the Eames-Bradley proposals, I understand they have yet to be presented formally. There was talk in the media during the week as to what the content may be but the proposals have not been formally published, or that was certainly the case earlier this week. Until such time as we have it and give it proper consideration, comment by me would not be helpful.
Clearly, it is a very difficult area, as Deputies know. Both Mr. Bradley and Archbishop Eames are held in high regard. They have obviously put a point of view arising from all of their consideration of the matter. There have been various comments on the reported contents of the report, and based on some of those comments, it may not meet with full support. However, it is best to await the publication of the report to see exactly what it says. I understand the report runs to 160 pages, covering such themes as the legacy of the past, reconciliation, support for victims and survivors, addressing society issues and justice and information recovery. As I said, a more detailed response would be preferable when the report is received.
Regarding the question of a cross-Border body, it is not something we propose to set up. I fully understand the continuing hurt and suffering of the Omagh families and the pain the people of Omagh have felt, which is as deep as it was at the time of the atrocity. We have had a number of trials and investigations on both sides of the Border and there is still a criminal case before the courts here, on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment, I am advised. A civil case which the families have taken is also ongoing. We have been able to see gardaí giving evidence, and we have heard evidence in the South on that issue. The question of whether a further review of all the evidence, in addition to what the Ombudsman at the time and others reported on, would be of greater benefit than concentrating on the criminal case that is still ongoing, is an issue that can be considered with regard to whether it would add to the situation or not.
I know this is a very difficult situation for the families and I do not want anything I say to be interpreted in any way as being less than sympathetic to them, but all of these various cases have been and are being taken in an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice, which, at the end of the day, can only be done through the criminal law.
As an aside to this question, I suggest the House should congratulate Senator George Mitchell on his appointment as special envoy to the Middle East. His experience in Northern Ireland, his brilliant patience and his grasp of detail will stand him in good stead in what is an exceptionally difficult situation. I hope he takes the opportunity to visit Ireland on his frequent travels across the Atlantic when dealing with his new responsibility.
As we are all aware, ten years ago the Real IRA bomb killed 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins. I understand six families have taken a STG£14 million civil case against five men they believe were responsible for this atrocity. Lord Brennan, who represents these families, has said this is the first time that civilians have confronted terrorists in the courts, which from the families' point of view, as private citizens, is an act of courage.
Did the Taoiseach raise with the British authorities the issue of the release of surveillance evidence to the families? As I understand it, the surveillance evidence that is available to the British authorities could be used by the families in the civil case they are taking against those they believe perpetrated this atrocity. If the Taoiseach did raise the matter with the British authorities, what sort of response did they give him? This evidence and these tapes were raised by at least a dozen cross-Border members of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body in October 2008. Will the Taoiseach give an update on what has happened and the current position in this regard? The Real IRA was responsible for that bomb. Does the Taoiseach have a view on the actions of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who made representations about Mr. McKevitt following receipt of a letter? He said that he was duty bound to have compassion and empathy. The same Minister did not show compassion and empathy to the families of the Omagh bomb victims when he refused to apologise to them for the distress caused by his action. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this matter?
I have not raised the matter of surveillance evidence with my counterpart. If a question is put to the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the relevant line Ministries may be able to shed further light on that matter.
Regarding the second matter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made his position clear. It should not be misrepresented in any way, or suggested that he is in any way ambivalent about actions of violence or people who perpetrate violence.
I did not wish to express any ambivalence. The point I made was that he expressed compassion and empathy arising from a letter and he refused to apologise to the families. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should have shown equal compassion and empathy for their plight and should understand the stress and the serious concern expressed by them arising from his actions.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that all the information now before us is compelling and, as the families of the victims and the survivors have called for time and again, that a fully independent all-Ireland public inquiry into the events that led up to the bombing and the subsequent investigation should be carried out? Does the Taoiseach accept that the body of evidence supporting such a call must include the exposure in the BBC "Panorama" programme, to which he referred, of the role of the UK Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, surveillance operation on mobile telephones used by the individuals involved in the transportation of that device or devices on that day? Does the Taoiseach accept that there are clear and strong indications that the people responsible were heavily infiltrated by British and other intelligence agencies? Does he accept that there is a question mark regarding the failure to make an intervention prior to the bombing, and the quality of the investigation that occurred subsequently?
Questions have been posed by victims, survivors and others, covering all opinion, regarding whether there were other factors in the consideration of those given responsibility to investigate the Omagh bombing, for example, the protection of information trails and informers within the ranks of those involved in carrying out that terrible atrocity on that day. These matters can only be properly investigated and answered through the setting in place of a fully independent public inquiry on an all-Ireland basis, for which the families concerned have called, because of all the information shown. Does the Taoiseach accept that this is the case and will he agree to the request in the interest of the achievement of truth and justice for the dead, the survivors and the victims' families?
The way justice is achieved for the families is to bring the perpetrators to justice. That is the purpose of criminal law, procedure and investigation. That is the issue. There is still a criminal case before the courts relating to this matter. The Garda will continue to work with others to establish in what way it can bring the perpetrators to justice. The contention or idea that the forces of law and order are less than anxious to do so, or in any way not committed to trying to do so, would be to take away from the efforts that must be made.
I am aware that members of the Judiciary and others have made statements on, or referred to, the investigation or various aspects thereof in the course of several criminal trials that have been held before the courts. Ultimately, however, the Garda and those under our jurisdiction will continue to work in every way they can to ascertain whether they can successfully bring a prosecution in this case. This is the real means by which the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice.