Micheál Martin
Ceist:1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the nature of the consultations he will arrange for the proposals regarding the constitutional convention before the Government published its position. [34384/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Constitutional Amendments
Sean Fleming
Ceist:2 Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Taoiseach his role in relation to the constitutional convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35120/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the consultations he will arrange in relation to proposals regarding the constitutional convention before the Government publishes its position on the matter. [37291/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to establish a constitutional convention and indicates areas for it to examine. The programme states that the convention will report within 12 months. I have previously indicated that, to give the convention time to fully consider the matters referred to it, the 12-month period should run from the date of its establishment, which is intended will be in the spring of next year. Work is proceeding in my Department on the preparation of proposals for the setting up of the convention, including consideration of issues raised in the Deputies' questions. I intend to invite Opposition leaders to meet me to discuss the convention before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
I welcome that the Taoiseach intends to meet the leaders of political parties before the recess to discussion the establishment of the constitutional convention and the Government's proposals because when I last tabled this question as far back as June, the Taoiseach indicated that, before the final structure and terms of reference would be agreed, party leaders would be consulted. We have not had any consultation since then on anything to do with the establishment of the convention. Will the Taoiseach facilitate the presentation of some ideas on the terms of reference and parameters of the convention? In previous replies, he raised the prospect of the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad and the children's rights referendum being debated separately to the work of the convention. Is it still his intention to deal with the abolition of the Seanad outside the parameters of the convention or does he envisage that matter being deliberated on within the convention?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I would like to have a meeting with Opposition leaders about the proposed structure for the constitutional convention, give them a few days to consider the terms of reference and so on and then reflect on people's views. We would like to get this as right as possible because it will affect the people long after we are gone from here.
We have committed to dealing with the questions of the abolition of the Seanad and a referendum on children's rights outside the convention. There is a separate argument in regard to the nature of the way we hold referenda in the future and whether it is appropriate to hold more than one on the same date given the confusion surrounding the recent referenda. If the turnout on an issue is not greater than 30%, it is invalid. The Oireachtas needs to consider these questions.
There is also a cost involved. We cannot hold referendums on a quarterly basis. I would like to talk separately to leaders about that and perhaps we can have an appropriate debate on it but it is the intention to hold the referendum in respect of the abolition of the Seanad and, when the children's advocacy groups get together and agree on a wording, to have the children's rights referendum outside the terms of the constitutional convention.
I welcome the fact the Taoiseach has set a time for consultation with leaders of the Opposition on the convention. It is important that they be open-ended discussions. The programme for Government gives some sense of the time it will last but clarification is needed on membership and participation by civic society, people from the Six Counties, the Unionists and the new Irish. The Taoiseach also has given a commitment to put on the clár an issue we have raised a number of times with him, which is voting rights for people in presidential elections, including passport holders from the North and among the diaspora. He is aware this is a big issue. I was in London over the past number of days and it was raised there. I support the Global Irish Economic Forum sponsored by the Government. I visited New York during the past month and I am aware that people feel robbed because citizens from other states who live abroad can vote in presidential elections in their home countries. Time is required and I am of the view that there is a need for more than one meeting. There must be a proper discussion and exchange of ideas on this matter. We can draw upon the work done by particular conventions and conferences in the past, although I accept that these entities did not deal expressly with the issue of the Constitution. I am seeking a clear commitment that the constitutional convention will be as inclusive as possible and that its membership will not merely be limited to people who live in this State. As well as people from the North, members of the diaspora from across the globe should be able to make a contribution.
We want the membership of the convention to be representative of society in general and to include people of all ages and genders, regardless of where they reside. These issues have been discussed from time to time in the past. As the Deputy is aware, there is not due to be another presidential election until 2018 and this will give us the time and space to get matters right. In the first instance, I want to establish as inclusive and as comprehensive a convention as possible. This will then be given its remit and terms of reference and directed to carry out its work. There is no reason the convention could not take into account or consider reports, recommendations or proposals from a wide variety of individuals and interests. If the Oireachtas wants to consider changes to the Constitution which would reflect and evolving Ireland, then it is in everyone's interests that all relevant proposals be examined.
I do not perceive this to be a narrow, extremely confined issue. The constitutional convention will have quite a broad remit that will cover a range of subjects. In that context, I have no objection to groups or organisations, either at home or abroad, putting forward proposals for consideration. This matter is relevant to all Irish citizens, not just those who live in this State but also those who reside elsewhere. In saying this I am not giving a signal in respect of the outcome of the convention. However, I do not see why all proposals or suggestions put forward should not be discussed.
The budget is due to be introduced next week, which suggests an extremely tight timeline with regard to meaningful engagement on this matter prior to the recess. I am of the view that we should engage on this matter before the recess. I respectfully suggest, however, that there may be a need for a more detailed engagement when the House reconvenes after Christmas. I offer that suggestion in good faith because I am aware of the situation which obtains at the end of a Dáil term, particularly in the context of the introduction of the budget. The Taoiseach appeared to indicate that the structure of the convention has almost been worked out and that he wants to put this to the other parties in the House. Those parties might want to reflect on what is to be proposed or, alternatively, they may wish to put ideas to the Government in respect of both the structure of the convention and the parameters within which it should operate. Does the Taoiseach envisage that a wide-ranging public consultation process or mechanism will form part of the deliberations of the convention in order that people might offer submissions, etc.?
Yes, I accept that. I propose to discuss with Opposition leaders the structure I have in mind. I am sure people will respect the confidentiality requirement relating to the latter. I do not have a preference with regard to whether we should consider the matter before the Christmas recess or in the new year. It is only right that we should discuss it in some detail in order that we might arrive at the best kind of convention possible.
I envisage that public hearings will take place. As the Deputy is aware, the National Forum on Europe held a process of public engagement. This worked in some respects but attendance at meetings held in some areas was extremely poor. As a result, the agendas of certain groups which might have issues with regard to treaty change or whatever were deliberately pushed to the fore. In the context of the Constitution, which belongs to the people, I envisage a process of public engagement. We should use all the modern methods of communication in this regard. Rather than just holding meetings in Bantry, Bunclody or wherever, we should — if we are to proceed with it at all — make the process as inclusive and as comprehensive as possible.
In order to facilitate engagement, has the Taoiseach given consideration to holding hearings in New York, Sydney, London, Belfast and Derry? Will he elaborate on what will be his role? Who will be responsible for convening the convention? Will it be the Taoiseach's Department or would he consider putting in place an independent group which would convene the convention and then make submissions or recommendations to the Government or the Dáil in respect of its work?
If I were to say to the Deputy that we had decided to send all the members of the constitutional convention to Auckland, Anchorage, Sakhalin Island or Buenos Aires——
The diplomatic corps could serve in that regard.
——there would certainly be an amount of comment on the part of particular individuals. As he is well aware, it is possible to engage in comprehensive conversations and contact with members of the diaspora abroad. I had experience of this in the context of recent contacts with a number of multinationals. The nature of that contact was as clear, if not clearer, as that in which the Deputy and I are now engaging. Instead of obliging groups to fly to destinations across the globe, there are modern methods by means of which we can establish direct contact and obtain the relevant information in ten minutes. If Ministers were on official business in particular locations, then I am sure they could meet delegations and listen to their views. The modern way of obtaining information from locations across the globe is more than adequate in the context of gathering together the views, proposals and ideas which people may wish to put forward.
I call Deputy Higgins.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question on an independent convening group. I do not intend to give him a lecture on geography but Belfast is not located on the other side of the world.
Nor do I intend to give the Deputy a lecture on independence. I reiterate what I said to Deputy Martin, namely, that I will discuss this matter with Opposition leaders prior to the Christmas recess. They can then reflect on it over Christmas and we will engage in a more detailed discussion in the new year. In that context, the Deputy can follow through with regard to the type of structure which should be put in place. I would like to think that the constitutional convention will not just be perceived as some form of sop and that it will instead make a meaningful contribution in respect of the changes which people envisage as being important in the context of their Constitution. The Constitution belongs to everyone and if we are going to do something, we should try to do it in as comprehensive and as widely beneficial a way as possible.
I wish to express our condolences to the Taoiseach on the passing of his mother at the weekend.
On the constitutional convention, the Taoiseach referred to one or two matters, such as that relating to the Seanad, which he will progress outside of it. In the context of the reform of the presidency, during one of its periods in opposition Fine Gael introduced a Bill which would have changed the requirement whereby any citizen who wishes to contest a presidential election is dependent on Members of the Oireachtas or county councillors in order to obtain a nomination. Does the Taoiseach envisage pursuing this change during the lifetime of this Dáil and to hold a referendum on the matter? One way to proceed would be to require presidential hopefuls to secure a certain number of signatures of citizens or voters in order to obtain a nomination rather than obliging them to submit to the current undemocratic and exclusive system which applies in the context of standing for the Office of President. Another way to proceed — this would be my recommendation — would be to abolish the office entirely.
Is Deputy Higgins not interested in running on the next occasion?
I thank Deputy Higgins for his expression of condolence. I appreciate what he said very much.
The programme for Government contains a reference to a reduction in the period of the term of service of the President from seven years to five. As already stated, that matter should form part of the conversation of the convention on the Constitution. A range of matters relating to the Presidency have been discussed, including age limits, voting rights, the nomination process etc.
In fact, there is an independent Private Members' Bill proposing seven changes of which Deputy Higgins will be well aware.
This is an issue in its entirety that is very appropriate for the constitutional convention to discuss. From that point of view, I would not see any restriction for the convention to discuss the full gamut on the spectrum of the requirements for the presidency. I have no intention of abolishing the presidency. I believe that the new presidency of President Higgins will be able to build on the bridges created by the former President, Dr. McAleese, and her predecessor, Dr. Robinson, in a way that will be beneficial for the country in terms of such matters as our status, reputation, and trade or economic links. In respect of the presidency as a part of the Constitution, the entire range would be very appropriate for the convention to discuss.
Northern Ireland Issues
Gerry Adams
Ceist:4 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the preparation undertaken in relation to the recent North-South Ministerial Council. [34193/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the issues he will prioritise at the recent North-South Ministerial Council. [34194/11]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met the recently elected new leader of the SDLP, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, to discuss issues of common concern. [34359/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if any progress has been made towards a formal meeting of the North-South Parliamentary Forum. [35487/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:8 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if any progress has been made towards formal meetings of the North-South Civic Consultative Forum. [35488/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:9 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister in relation to the need for a public inquiry into the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane since 25 October 2011. [35489/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:10 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to meet with the family of Pat Finucane. [35490/11]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:11 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with the Northern Ireland Executive in the past month. [35840/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:12 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh on 18 November 2011. [35935/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:13 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the issues that were discussed at the recent North-South Ministerial Council meeting. [35936/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:14 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if his commitment to the proposed N2 A5 road upgrade was discussed at the recent North-South Ministerial Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35937/11]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:15 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on his recent contacts with political leaders in Northern Ireland. [35995/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:16 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Belfast on the 17 November 2011. [36995/11]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:17 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Ms Geraldine Finucane. [36996/11]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:18 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the specific action he intends undertaking in relation to pushing for a sworn inquiry into the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane. [37372/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 18, inclusive, together.
I met the newly elected leader of the SDLP, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, on Wednesday, 9 November, during the course of his visit to Dublin. I congratulated him on winning the party leadership and assured him of my support and co-operation in the period ahead. We also agreed to strengthen co-operation at political and official level between the Government and the SDLP.
On Thursday, 17 November, I travelled to Belfast for my first visit to the city since becoming Taoiseach. I paid a courtesy call on the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, at Stormont Castle.
I also visited two community projects. My first call was at the East Belfast Mission on the Newtownards Road. I then visited the Short Strand Community Centre in Beechfield Street. In both cases, I met local community representatives and was greatly impressed by the work being carried out in both centres.
I was the guest of honour at the annual Aisling Awards where I delivered the keynote address. I also had the privilege of presenting the Aisling Person of the Year Award to Ms Geraldine Finucane.
Prior to the awards ceremony, I met Ms Finucane, members of her family and their solicitor, Mr. Peter Madden. We discussed the issue of a public inquiry into the death of her husband, Mr. Pat Finucane. I reiterated the Government's firm position referring to the all-party Oireachtas motion calling for a public inquiry and referred to my conversation with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, prior to his recent meeting with the Finucane family when I reiterated the Government's position.
As I have previously stated on the record of this House, my Government is committed on this issue on the basis of the all-party motion and of giving whatever help we can to Ms Finucane and her family in their continuing search for the truth through an independent public inquiry. Officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have met the family since I met them in Belfast to examine how further assistance, particularly in the US, could be arranged.
On the Friday morning, I attended a business breakfast event in Belfast where I addressed 70 members of the Northern Ireland Business Alliance representing the business community and organisations in Northern Ireland. I also met the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Niall Ó Donnghaile, and cross-party members of Belfast City Council when I visited Belfast City Hall.
Following my visit to Belfast, I travelled to Armagh to attend the North-South Ministerial Council plenary meeting. This was the 13th meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council and was co-chaired by the First and Deputy First Ministers.
We discussed a wide range of shared issues, including the economic challenges we both face against a backdrop of fiscal contraction in the European Union and global economies. I briefed the Northern Ireland Executive on our cost saving plans and on our continued efforts in reducing the deficit.
We discussed areas of co-operation, including on NAMA and the banks, and also opportunities to make efficiencies and mutual savings through co-operating in areas where it makes sense to do so. We also explored potential collaboration to meet the emerging challenges in third level education and reviewed the important contribution that the agrifood sector could make to the economy.
We approved the appointment of members to the boards of the North-South implementation bodies and directors of Tourism Ireland for the next four years and expressed appreciation for the work of the outgoing members and directors.
The importance of tourism to the economy and jobs, North and South, is well recognised and events such as the MTV EMA awards recently held in Belfast with significant international audiences highlights the potential of the sector. In that context, we explored opportunities to work together to maximise the benefits of forthcoming initiatives both North and South, including the Titanic centenary in 2012 and the Derry City of Culture and "The Gathering" in 2013. We also discussed the north-west gateway initiative and agreed on the next steps to make further progress which will be subject to a report to the next meeting of the council.
We discussed the Government's recent decision to defer further investment in the A5 — north-west gateway to Aughnacloy — and A8 — Belfast to Larne — road projects. I previously discussed this with the First and Deputy First Ministers when I met them on the margins of the presidential inauguration in Dublin Castle and we discussed the matter again when we met in Stormont Castle on Thursday last. On each occasion I made it clear that the Government's decision is to defer, and not abandon, these important projects. At the North-South Ministerial Council plenary we approved a payment of £3 million in accordance with the previously agreed procedure in respect of a milestone reached in the project. The Government's commitment to realising these projects through our undertaking to provide £25 million for each year 2015 and 2016 was acknowledged. The relevant Departments have now been mandated to prepare a new funding and implementation plan in this context.
Progress on the St. Andrews review was discussed and proposals were agreed to advance the review with a view to taking decisions at the next plenary meeting in June 2012.
We also discussed ways to progress movement on the North-South consultative forum and agreed to finalise our deliberations on this matter at the June 2012 meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. We welcomed the work undertaken over a number of joint meetings by the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly towards a North-South parliamentary forum and look forward to the outcome of the next joint meeting on 15 December.
Finally, Ministers approved a comprehensive schedule of NSMC meetings, including a NSMC institutional meeting in spring 2012 and the next NSMC plenary meeting on 15 June 2012, which will be held here in the Republic.
I have 11 of these questions. Five of them are what I would consider questions of substance. Most of those relate to parts of agreements between the Irish and British Governments and some relate to parts of international agreements. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to come back on them.
I will concentrate, if I could, on the Pat Finucane killing and the Government's efforts on that. I welcome very much the Taoiseach's meeting with Ms Geraldine Finucane.
I could make a number of suggestions on how this case can be advanced. First, the British Government has acted in breach of the Weston Park agreement. There were a number of parts of that agreement in terms of killings, all of which have been put in place. Some of them have completed their findings. On this one, the British have not acted. This is unusual in so far as it is a breach of an agreement between the Government here and the government in London.
I wonder if the Taoiseach has instructed the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or would he, to provide a briefing paper on these matters for the widest possible international distribution. I wonder could such a paper ask organisations, individuals and other Governments to publicly support the Finucane family's demand for an independent inquiry. Would the Taoiseach instruct our embassies to raise this issue in discussions with other Governments? In particular, would he instruct our embassy and consulates in the USA and in Europe to raise these issues with the government in London? Would he formally raise this issue at the UN, at EU ministerial level, etc.? In other words, would the Government, in supporting what is an all-party motion of the Dáil and a long-standing campaign by the family, use all of its resources, contacts and diplomatic skills to ensure that the British Government gives the Finucane family what the Dáil and the Finucane family have asked for?
I had a very good meeting with Ms Finucane and members of her family and their lawyer prior to the function of the Aisling Awards, at which Ms Finucane received the Person of the Year Award. I undertook at that meeting that I would raise this matter with our United States colleagues because of their considerable interest in this over a long period, and I intend to follow through on that. I also said I would explore other ways whereby this might be followed through.
I take note of what Deputy Adams says here. I consider that this particular case is not unique in that a man is dead. My sorrow is for every victim, and I made that perfectly clear both to media and to the Finucane family. However, this was the subject of agreement at Weston Park. There was an agreement that the recommendations of Judge Cory would be followed through on and this was one of those areas where his recommendation was that there should be a public inquiry. This State followed through with that in respect of a similar recommendation, which is why the Smithwick tribunal was set up and is running.
I met subsequently with the Ministers, Mr. Danny Kennedy and Ms Arlene Foster, in Armagh. I noted subsequent comments about requiring that this State should apologise on the basis of a perception of the collusion of this State with killers who would have returned from Northern Ireland to places in the Republic. I want to make it perfectly clear that when the IRA was in operation, it was an enemy of this State——
Hear, hear.
——and citizens of this State were murdered, shot and blown up, including members of the Defence Forces, the Garda and the Army. As they were enemies of the State, I deplore absolutely every single death and have sympathy for the families of every victim, but I do not want anybody to run away with an assumption that this State was in formal collusion with the IRA, or killers associated with the IRA, who were using the opportunity as cover.
The Pat Finucane murder, in my view, was specifically in the context of the Cory recommendations, and the Cory recommendation was that there should be a public inquiry. When I was on the other side of the House in opposition, the House unanimously supported my motion in that regard, and we still support that. However, let nobody be under any illusions here. We are not going back to the old ways of the past. People should not, under any circumstances, assume that Governments of the past were in direct collusion when people were unfortunately wounded, maimed, killed, blown up or murdered in Northern Ireland, or that there was a State safe haven for them in the Twenty-six Counties.
Hear, hear.
Citizens of this State were blown up, murdered, maimed, shot and killed by persons within the IRA and associated with that kind of activity. I have no wish other than to say that everybody who lost a family member is a victim, and I have sympathy and sorrow for all of those families, irrespective of how that happened.
I also read those comments from Unionist politicians in general. I would accept, of course, that this State has consistently been resolutely opposed to the Provisional IRA campaign, and the campaigns of others. These were militant campaigns which inflicted unnecessary violence on thousands of civilians on the island of Ireland, and which resulted in death, destruction and misery for generations of families and people.
In that context, I would ask the Taoiseach to reflect on and question how the Minister, Deputy Shatter, dealt with the Smithwick inquiry as it has given cause for concern in Unionist circles. We should never leave ourselves open to the accusation that we are short-termist or dealing with an inquiry in a certain manner that might give succour to those who want to believe certain perspectives or viewpoints in regard to the Republic or successive Governments. This is why I was very concerned about the motions that came before the House in regard to the Smithwick inquiry and the refusal to give us all the advice the judge had given to the Minister at the time, and in particular how that would play with Unionist sensitivities. It is extremely important that, from here onwards, there is not a scintilla of doubt about the independence of Smithwick from any intervention by any Minister or anybody in its deliberations and work.
With regard to the Finucane case and the need for a sworn public inquiry, I believe we are agreed in the House that this a breach of the Weston Park agreement. Fundamentally, therefore, a breakthrough can only take place between the two Governments which are signatories, with others, to that agreement. We have celebrated, if one likes, the changed nature of the relationship — the happier relationship — between Britain and Ireland. However, I suggest the fact an inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane has not been held to date has the capacity to significantly sour and undermine that relationship, which we do not want, just as the difficulties we have had in regard to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings has further eroded all the work people have put into consolidating and enhancing the relationship between the two Governments and two peoples.
A way has to be found between the two Governments at intergovernmental level in order to have this inquiry. At present, there is stalemate. The British Government is essentially setting its face against an inquiry — that is how I read it and it seems to be its position. It is a matter for the Dáil and the Government in particular to persuade the British Government to go ahead and hold such an inquiry, which is the unanimous view of Dáil Éireann.
There are a number of further points I would like to put to the Taoiseach and I would like the opportunity to come back on some of my other questions at a later stage.
I thank Deputy Martin for those comments. Let us be very clear on this. The Government and the Minister for Justice and Equality had and have absolutely no intention whatsoever of interfering in any way with the independence of the Smithwick tribunal. I understand that, when these things are mentioned, it can oftentimes give the perception that one wants to in some way interfere with a process. The Oireachtas, in particular the Dáil, set up the Smithwick tribunal. What happened in June of this year is that the terms of reference to the Smithwick tribunal were amended to require it to produce an interim report to the Clerk of the Dáil not later than 30 June 2011. Within the process of setting these things up, it is appropriate for the body which set it up to hear an interim report by 30 June and that its final report should be presented to the Clerk of the Dáil not later than 30 November 2011.
Judge Smithwick had previously indicated to the Minister for Justice and Equality that the tribunal would be able to conclude its work in the timetable that was established in the amended terms of reference. It was made perfectly clear by the Minister in the Dáil that if, for any unforeseen reason, the chairman found he could not conclude his inquires and have his report finally dealt with by 30 November 2011, he could report that to the House and the House would consider that. The House did consider that. As the House is aware and Deputy Martin will know, following a request from Judge Smithwick, the Government approved a further extension of six months for a final report to be produced by 31 May 2012, and a motion in that regard will be put to the House in due course. The tribunal will also be required to produce another interim report by 9 March next year.
I understand the tribunal is currently conducting public hearings. Given the body was set up by the Oireachtas, it is appropriate the Oireachtas should be able to hear interim reports on the proceeding and state of business of the tribunal without any question of interfering in any way with the independence of Judge Smithwick, the chairman.
I want to make this perfectly clear. In handling this, the Minister for Justice and Equality was quite specific on the record. There has been no other involvement with the Smithwick tribunal other than to say we would like to have an interim report and a final report by November. If it cannot done by then, the tribunal was told to inform the Oireachtas. That happened, and a further six months extension was granted, with a request for a further interim report by 9 March.
Is the Taoiseach aware that 80,000 public sector workers are taking strike action in Northern Ireland tomorrow? It is part of a 3 million strong strike in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales in response to serious attacks on living standards and the policy of the British Government. Again, like in this country, it is the working class that must pay for the crisis. Is the Taoiseach aware of the concern of workers in the North or has he had an opportunity to meet with public sector workers or unions about swingeing cuts in public expenditure which threaten dire consequences? The Northern Ireland Assembly is tasked with carrying through these cuts, the effects of which will be the downgrading or closure of accident and emergency departments, the closure of schools and the loss of thousands of jobs in the public sector.
Does the Taoiseach agree that in Northern Ireland there is a higher than usual dependence on the public sector for historical reasons? The public sector is a very important employer and also supports many jobs in the private sector. Cuts such as these are very serious for the lives of working people and the working class in Northern Ireland. Will the Taoiseach make it part of his business in regard to the North to urge the British Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly not to proceed with such cuts because of the damaging effect on workers and society in the North? There will be a further intensification of the unemployment problem which, traditionally, has been quite serious in the North and has serious social and political repercussions, apart from the repercussions on the lives of the unemployed and those who are dependent on the public sector.
Deputy Higgins is correct that Northern Ireland has a high proportion of workers in the public sector. On the evening I was there to meet the First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, MLA, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, MLA, in Stormont Castle the Northern Ireland Assembly had approved its fiscal programme for the next period and had published it that day. That is its response and deliberation on how it sees Northern Ireland developing. A degree of confidence was expressed by both Ministers in regard to business and the economy in general, although it is challenging. Part of their analysis and discussion centres around consideration being given to the possibility of a reduction in the corporate tax rate to make it more equivalent to the rate here in the context of the island economy. However, that is a matter for themselves and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and it would have to take into account compensatory measures.
For many years and for a variety of reasons Northern Ireland has had serious budget deficits and both Ministers, the Assembly and the Executive are well aware of the challenge they face. Cutbacks in any location or sector are difficult at any time, but it is a matter for the Assembly to make decisions about reducing its cost base, increasing competitiveness and taking the opportunity to grow jobs and increase employment in Northern Ireland. Yes, the number of public sector workers was extraordinarily high in the past and that is now being addressed in the fiscal programme agreed and published by the Assembly.
I wish to return to the Pat Finucane case. I agree with the Taoiseach's expression of concern for all the victims. Sinn Féin represents many of those victims. I know many of them and their families. They include members of my family, so I have an affinity with what the Taoiseach said on the issue. The Taoiseach also took the opportunity of responding to my question about Pat Finucane to set out his opposition to the IRA's armed campaign. His position is a matter of historical fact. He also asserts that there was no collusion between this State and the IRA, which I also believe to be true.
However, it is also a matter of fact that the establishment here turned its back for decades on the people in the North. In some cases, elements in the services here, such as the heavy gangs, particularly during that period in the 1970s under a dreadful Fine Gael-led Government, set aside many of the rights of citizens, including the rights of people who were not engaged with any armed groups but were simply strongly nationalist or republican. There were many instances of injustice. In the Taoiseach's native county, the hijacking of the remains of Frank Stagg was a dreadfully dark chapter. Censorship under section 31 was nothing to be proud of. In all of that the issue of collusion between elements in this State and elements of the British security forces does arise, famously in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and in other cases, including in my constituency of Louth. All of these issues must be probed. Perhaps we should have a wide ranging debate on these matters at some time.
I remind the Deputy that this is Question Time, not a debate.
Yes. To return to the question about Pat Finucane, I would like if the Taoiseach will go further than simply noting the suggestions I made. If a government has an agreement with another government and the other government breaches that agreement, there is a duty on the government that is the injured party to draw upon the strengths, influence and goodwill it has to seek adjudication on the issue. Remember that in this case a lawyer, an officer of the court, who was acting in a human rights brief was killed and it is strongly suspected he was killed by agents of the British state. There is a huge duty on the Taoiseach to come forward at some point — if he does not wish to do so today, that is fair enough because this issue will continue to be raised — and give an outline of what the Government has done to get the British Government to fulfil its commitments on this matter.
Deputy Martin raised a question which I did not answer earlier. The only facility to arrange this is not for the House but is between the Governments, and that obviously means at the level of Taoiseach and British Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, called me about his decision to appoint Desmond de Silva QC to review the papers in regard to the Finucane case, which run to over 1 million, I pointed out to him that the House had adopted a very clear all-party motion on this and that we would continue to press for the public inquiry recommended by Judge Peter Cory. The Prime Minister said the Government did not wish to go down the road of having an interminable line of public inquiries. I reminded him that this was part of the overall agreement at Weston Park, arising from the recommendations of Judge Cory, which was followed through here with the Smithwick tribunal. That is why on each occasion I have the opportunity to meet with the British Prime Minister I will raise this, arising from the all-party approval given in the House, and because it is necessary to do so at government level.
I understand the sensitivities of this and how it can upset people but the question that was raised with me following my meeting with the Northern Ireland Ministers, Danny Kennedy, MLA, and Arlene Foster, MLA, was an assumption that there was State collusion here with killers, who could go to Northern Ireland, do their bloody and foul deeds and return to safe havens. I was very clear in my response to that. While I fully understand the sensitivity and the sorrow of every family who lost a member through those bad times, I reiterate that the IRA was the enemy of this State and people in our Defence Forces, the Garda, the Army and civilians, ordinary citizens, lost their lives because of those kinds of activities. In expressing that sorrow for every victim, I ask if we would not be in a different place if we did not have over 3,000 deaths.
The point I raised again directly was that in the Finucane case there was a recommendation that there be a public inquiry by Judge Cory and that we had followed through in dealing with our end of it. Nobody expects that we will have 190 public inquiries and when Minister Bell gave me the list and told me he would like me to talk to some of the people from his locality who had been deprived of family members through this kind of activity, he was very strong on that. I want to be equally clear here that the IRA and its personnel were the enemies of this State. People lost their lives because of decisions taken, either authorised or unauthorised, within the IRA.
For my part, I will continue to raise this with the British Prime Minister in a situation where clearly there was a recommendation for a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. I said that to his wife, his son and to his lawyer, and I said it publicly. That is why it is important because it was in the Weston Park discussions, and the Cory recommendation was very clear.
A number of issues arise in such a large volume of questions and we will not get time to get through everything but specifically arising out of the Taoiseach's reply and in the context of Question No. 15, and the question relating to Dr. Alaisdair McDonnell and the issues of common concern, the Taoiseach referred to the A5 project as a deferral rather than an abandonment. Originally, it was announced as an abandonment of the road project. When I first heard about this I said one could be cynical and say there are no votes for Fine Gael or Labour in the North. This is the first serious doubt that has been put on a project, and several projects in terms of infrastructure, that had an all-island context to it and that was putting flesh on the bone in terms of a genuine development of synergies between the Northern Ireland economy and the economy of the Republic because we bemoaned for years the lack of two-way traffic. That is the reason InterTradeIreland was established to develop stronger links and synergies between businesses on both sides of the Border. I saw this as a significant decision by the former Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, who drove it when he was Minister for Finance and subsequently as Taoiseach, but it also makes sense in terms of enhancing the productive capacity of the island's economy.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to reverse the decision because there is a danger that we are playing politics with the projects in terms of throwing a few bob a year at them to keep them afloat but in essence it will be a long way down the line before anything will happen. Commitments had been entered into and given the shared journey we have travelled on the island of Ireland regarding all of the issues, this one issue of the infrastructural development and the road projects is moving the situation into a new territory and a new phase, and I believe it will come back to haunt the State if it is seen to be resiling from heartfelt commitments given not just by the previous Government, but by the entire Oireachtas in voting through the moneys for those projects.
Could I ask one brief question before the Taoiseach replies?
Yes.
The Taoiseach might know this but for his information, the decision on the M2-A5 project was part of the St. Andrews Agreement.
Clearly it is a matter of choice. A previous Government stated it would put up €400 million for this development which was to be a dual carriageway to Derry. Everybody supports good transport and the lines of trade that follow from that but in consideration of the capital programme we published here of almost €17 billion over the period of the programme, we had to make choices to defer metro north, the joining up of rail links, the Navan line, the western rail corridor and the vast majority of major road infrastructure in the Republic. We were not in a position to provide them because the money is simply not available and, against that background, we recognise the importance of the connection across to the north west and beyond Derry into Donegal, which would free up lines to Dublin. The consideration was also one for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly because there is a substantial amount of money involved.
We made a formal Cabinet decision that €25 million would be provided in 2015 and in 2016. The discussions I had with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in Stormont Castle concerned the possibility of rejigging the Executive's own financial projections for the years ahead, in other words, how could the moneys to be provided through the Assembly and the Executive be adjusted to cater for an injection of €50 million from the Government here between 2015 and 2016?
This road development is to be in three phases — to Sion Mills, Aughnacloy and further south. Having stated this was a clear Cabinet decision for a €50 million injection, which we could have abandoned and put into projects here, and because of its importance and its link, the question of whether it be a road facility project that would be revised downwards, that is, from motorway to whatever, and the adjustment of the fiscal programme by the Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, we agreed that the officials from the two Departments would meet the following week to discuss a rejigging of that proposal.
As I said in my reply, I discussed this with First Minister Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness in Dublin Castle at the inauguration of President Higgins and also in Stormont Castle and I was absolutely clear that is the decision we have made, cutting cloth according to measure as circumstances economically are now very different from what they were when a previous Taoiseach stated we would put in €400 million.
We imposed €6 billion in cuts last year and kept it in.
We have given them clarity on €50 million — €25 million in 2015 and €25 million in 2016 — and the officials were to work out the detail of how that is to apply.
I take the opportunity also to express my sympathies on the Taoiseach's family loss.
Does it give the Taoiseach any pause for thought in implementing the policies of austerity dictated by the troika, given the massive mobilisation that will take place in the North of Ireland tomorrow which will see 80,000 to 100,000 public sector workers come out against attempts to essentially cut their pay and increase their pension contributions to pay for an economic crisis they did not create? This will be an unprecedented mobilisation in the North and across Britain of people, our nearest neighbours, who are saying they are not accepting this and that it is not right or just that ordinary workers should have to pay for a crisis other people created.
Sorry, Deputy, that is not one of the questions.
Does the proximity of these events make the Taoiseach pause for thought in that we are pursuing the same policies here and imposing the same unfairness on public sector workers, other workers and vulnerable sectors of society?
That is a separate issue.
Was that discussed at the Ministerial Council meeting?
I would also like to ask about the Aughnacloy to Derry upgrade. It is lamentable that the State is pulling back from these infrastructural projects. Given that there is some level of commitment to continue with this project, can the Taoiseach investigate suggestions made by some of our party colleagues in Derry that there are serious questions to be answered about the huge expenditure on consultants that has been sanctioned to date both by the Northern Ireland Executive and by ourselves, in so far as we have any involvement in it? We are talking about millions of euro going to big consultancy firms. The Government should look into how money is being spent on these infrastructural projects, who is getting the money and what precisely these consultants are doing for a project that has not yet moved one inch.
I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for his expression of condolence. I appreciate it. We too have often questioned the work of consultants over the years. I assume that if this was to be designed to motorway status in the first instance, then consultants would have been employed. I do not have a figure for what was allocated to consultants who worked on the road design, whether any of them was employed by this State or what process was followed. If that figure becomes available, I will send it to the Deputy.
In respect of the public sector protest march against cutbacks, every group takes its own actions. As I replied to Deputy Higgins earlier, there was a huge dependence on public sector workers in Northern Ireland for many years. The Executive clearly considered the implications of the economy of Northern Ireland for the next number of years. It took all these things into account and passed its programme on the day I was to meet the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. No more than here, people are perfectly entitled to protest provided that they are peaceful.
It is now late 2011 and the Taoiseach has stated that €25 million will be provided for the A5 in 2015 and 2016. I ask him to reconsider that. Following the North-South Ministerial Council meeting, I would have thought there would have been a review of our commitment to the A5. The infrastructural development that has occurred on the island has been of huge benefit to the economy, in terms of the movement of goods, services and people. The completion of the A5, as originally envisaged, would have a transformative impact on the North-South economy and on the island economy as a whole. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider his decision on this. When we had to bring in a budget with €6 billion worth of cuts last year, including cuts to the capital programme, the then Government still managed to preserve the provision for the A5 upgrade.
I hear the Deputy's proposal. The Cabinet made a clear decision, given the economic circumstances that prevail, that €25 million would be made available in 2015 and in 2016. I conveyed this very clearly to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The officials on both sides were tasked with a readjustment of the fiscal programme to cater for that. We discussed that directly with the two Ministers involved.
In the west and the north west, much other work is continuing in third level institutions. The Minister for Education and Skills had a very useful bilateral meeting, and discussed the payment from the Government for radiotherapy facilities at Altnagelvin Area Hospital and other cross-Border activities in the north west.
The redesign and readjustment of the fiscal programme will now take into account the clear decision of the Government. While it is not all that was envisaged in the first place, neither are the economic circumstances, but the decision brings clarity to things. The Executive and the officials here will now work on the adjustment of the fiscal programme to cater for the three sections of the road involved. We are not in any way abandoning the project, but will see it through to fruition in the three stages outlined.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.